Appeal No. 2005-2313 4
Application No. 10/052,695
touch on the touch sensor transfers at least a portion of the first signal to the touch sensor,
pointing to column 2, lines 9-11 and 56-59, and asserting the tabletop or plurality of
antennae to be the claimed touch sensor.
The examiner also points to column 2, lines 46-52, of Dietz for a teaching of the
touch sensor being configured to use the transferred first signal to determine information
related to the touch on the touch sensor. The examiner further points to column 2, lines
13-16, of Dietz for a teaching that the signal can be transferred from the user contact point
to the touch sensor or from the touch sensor to the user contact point.
The examiner acknowledges that Dietz does not disclose a touch sensor switch
electrically connected to the touch sensor, a user contact point switch electrically
connected to the first user contact point, and a power source, wherein the touch sensor
switch or the first user contact point switch must be closed in order for the system to
determine information related to the touch, but the examiner turns to Phares for a touch
system with multiple selectable touch regions, wherein each of the touch regions is
connected to a switch. Specifically, the examiner identifies Figure 2 of Phares as an
embodiment with two such regions.
The examiner further points to column 3, lines 14-19, of Phares for a disclosure of a
switching means for making one region sensitive while another region remains insensitive.
The examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Dietz by
electrically connecting each of the first user contact points and touch sensors to a switch
and by making such regions active with the close of respective switches, as taught by
Phares. It is the examiner’s contention that the artisan would have been led to make such
a modification based on Phares’ teaching that a utilization of a switch means is beneficial
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007