Appeal No. 2005-2313 3
Application No. 10/052,695
teachings, suggestions or implications in the prior art as a whole or knowledge generally
available to one having ordinary skill in the art. Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp.,
837 F.2d 1044, 1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825
(1988); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc. , 776 F.2d 281, 293, 227
USPQ 657, 664 (Fed. Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986); ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc.
v. Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984). These
showings by the examiner are an essential part of complying with the burden of presenting
a prima facie case of obviousness. Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d
1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). If that burden is met, the burden then shifts to the applicant
to overcome the prima facie case with argument and/or evidence. Obviousness is then
determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the
arguments. See Id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1040, 228 USPQ 685, 687 (Fed. Cir.
1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 146-147 (CCPA 1976). Only those
arguments actually made by appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments
which appellants could have made but chose not to make in the brief have not been
considered and are deemed to be waived [see 37 CFR §41.67(c)(1)(vii)].
With regard to independent claim 19, the examiner contends that Dietz discloses a
system for determining information related to a touch on a touch sensor, wherein that
system comprises a first user contact point separate from the touch sensor, and wherein
the contact point is a user’s chair (the examiner refers to column 3, lines 10-14, “chairs
[see figure 1] 121-122...include conductive parts...electrically connected to individual
receivers”). Referring to column 2, lines 26-28, of Dietz, “Receivers are capacitively
coupled to different users, and configured to receive the uniquely identifiable signals,” the
examiner contends that the reference further discloses that the first user contact point is
driven with a first signal. Moreover, the examiner contends that Dietz discloses that the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007