Ex Parte Geaghan et al - Page 10




              Appeal No. 2005-2313                                                                      10                
              Application No. 10/052,695                                                                                  


                     Again, we are unpersuaded by appellants’ arguments which relate to a single                          
              reference when the rejection is based on a combination of references and the argued                         
              limitations are alleged to be taught in the secondary reference.                                            

                     With specific reference to claim 34, appellants argue that Dietz’s completed circuit,                
              caused by a touch input, will always include ground, whereas the instant claim 34 recites                   
              that the sensitivity of a capacitive touch sensor is enhanced by completing a circuit that                  
              comprises a user, the first contact point, and the touch sensor and “that does not include a                
              ground.”                                                                                                    

                     We agree with the examiner in that Figure 4 of Dietz, and its attendant description,                 
              shows a touch sensor as a capacitive touch sensor and the completion of the circuit,                        
              comprising a user, a first contact point, and the touch sensor, does not include a ground.                  
              There is no ground shown in Figure 4 and there is none described by Dietz.  We also note,                   
              with curiosity, as did the examiner, that whereas the claim calls for the circuit not including             
              a ground, Figures 5-8 of appellants’ application do include a ground.  In view of Dietz’s                   
              Figure 4 and appellants’ Figures 5-8, it is not clear to us why appellants contend that in                  
              Dietz’s system, “a completed circuit caused by a touch input will always include a ground”                  
              (principal brief-page 5).                                                                                   

                     At pages 2-3 of the reply brief, appellants further explain that Figure 4 of Dietz is                
              merely a “simplified circuit diagram...” and that it “would be expected that at least the                   
              transmitter includes a power source that is connected to an earth ground.”  We disagree.                    
              If there is such a power source requiring a ground, then it would appear that appellants’                   
              circuit would also require this ground.  But, appellants argue, their specification describes               
              embodiments such as a hand-held mobile device that has its own internal power source,                       
              not connected to earth ground, whereas Dietz does not disclose such an embodiment.                          







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007