Appeal No. 2005-2313 5
Application No. 10/052,695
“when activation is desired only in the selected region of the touchscreen.” The examiner
also contends that the closing of a switch to cause some activation is common and
consistent with conventional uses of switches. With regard to the power source, the
examiner finds this to be “inherent” in that “any type of electrical switch requires a power
source to be operable” (answer-page 6).
Appellants contend that the examiner has failed to make a prima facie case of
obviousness in that there is no suggestion to make the proposed combination and that,
even if made, the proposed combination of references does not teach all of the claimed
elements.
We have reviewed the evidence in this case, including, inter alia, the references and
the arguments of appellants and the examiner, and we conclude from such review that the
examiner has set forth a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to independent claim
19 that has not been successfully rebutted by appellants.
The examiner points out where each of the claimed elements can be found in Dietz,
explaining the differences between the instant claimed subject matter and what is
disclosed by Dietz, relying on Phares for supplying those perceived differences, and
explaining what would have led the artisan to combine these teachings in such a manner
as to arrive at the instant claimed subject matter. We can find no fault in the examiner’s
reasoning.
Appellants, for their part, do not dispute that Dietz discloses what the examiner
alleges it discloses. Rather, appellants contend that since Dietz teaches that systems in
which a touch sensor acts as a receiver of signals transferred through a user from a signal
driven user contact point is an “inferior” arrangement (principal brief-page 3), and, instead,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007