Appeal No. 2005-2313 8
Application No. 10/052,695
Since we are unpersuaded by appellants of any error in the examiner’s analysis, we
will sustain the rejection of claim 19, and of its dependent claims 20, 22-26, and 29, under
35 U.S.C. §103.
With regard to claims 27 and 36, appellants argue that Dietz does not disclose that
the first user contact point and the touch sensor are mounted in a single housing. Again,
we are unpersuaded by appellants’ argument because the examiner recognized this
deficiency in Dietz and relied on Phares to supply the deficiency, pointing to Figures 1-3
and column 3, lines 8-11, of Phares for the suggestion of placing the first user contact
point and the touch sensor in a “single touch system housing.” Rather than attack, if they
could, the examiner’s position as to Phares’ teaching and the reason for the combination,
appellants simply state that one reference doesn’t show certain claimed features, even
though the examiner clearly relied on the second reference for those features.
Accordingly, since appellants have persuaded us of no error in the examiner’s position, we
will sustain the rejection of claims 27 and 36 under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Appellants do argue, at page 3 of the reply brief, that Phares does not properly
teach or disclose a contact point as recited in the instant claims, since Phares merely
discloses a touch sensor sectioned into identifiable regions, none of which is construable
as a user contact point. However, the examiner relies on Dietz for the teaching of placing
the contact point in various locations and relies on Phares for the suggestion of multiple
touch inputs mounted in a single housing, concluding that the suggestion of this
combination would have been to place a contact point and a touch input in a single
housing. The examiner’s reasoning appears sound to us and appellants have offered
nothing to persuade us of error in the examiner’s rationale.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007