Appeal No. 2005-2313 7
Application No. 10/052,695
Appellants next argue that Dietz does not teach certain claim limitations such as a
touch sensor switch electrically connected to the touch sensor, a user contact point switch
electrically connected to a user contact point, and a power source electrically connected to
the touch sensor switch and the user contact point switch (principal brief-page 4). While
this is true, the examiner recognized these deficiencies in Dietz and turned to Phares in
order to supply the deficiencies.
Accordingly, it is not enough for appellants to argue the deficiencies of Dietz alone.
Appellants must show that either Phares does not disclose what the examiner has alleged
and/or that, for some reason, the skilled artisan would not have sought to combine the
teachings of the references. This, appellants have not done. At pages 5-6 of the principal
brief, appellants argue that while Phares discloses subdividing at least one of the two
conductive films into separated portions, each portion is still a part of the same overall
touch screen, whereas, the instant claims require that the user contact point is separate
from the touch sensor, not an integral part of it. Moreover, argue appellants, neither
portion of the touch screen of Phares is driven with a signal that is transferred to the other
due to a touch, as is required by the instant claims.
Again, we are unpersuaded by appellants’ argument since the alleged deficiencies
of Phares argued by appellants are shown by the examiner to have been taught by Dietz.
So, while the examiner has put forth a reasonable case as to why the references would
have been combinable and as to how each of the various claimed elements is taught by
one or the other of the references, appellants resort to arguing the references individually,
rather than arguing why, specifically, in view of the examiner’s showing, it would be
improper to modify Dietz by the teachings of Phares. The only argument made out by
appellants in this regard is the “teaching away” argument, which we disposed of supra.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007