Appeal No. 2005-2313 2
Application No. 10/052,695
contact point separate from the touch sensor, the first user contact point driven with a first
signal, a first user contact point switch electrically connected to the first user contact point,
and a power source electrically connected to the touch sensor switch and the first user
contact point switch, wherein the touch on the touch sensor transfers at least a portion of
the first signal to the touch sensor, the touch sensor configured to use the transferred first
signal to determine information related to the touch on the touch sensor.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Phares 5,815,141 Sep. 29, 1998
Dietz et al. (Dietz) 6,498,590 Dec. 24, 2002
(filed May 24, 2001)
Claims 19, 20, and 22-36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Dietz in view of Phares.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the respective positions of
appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. §103, it is incumbent upon the examiner to
establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine,
837 F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so doing, the examiner is
expected to make the factual determinations set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383
U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966), and to provide a reason why one having ordinary
skill in the pertinent art would have been led to modify the prior art or to combine prior art
references to arrive at the claimed invention. Such reason must stem from some
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007