Appeal No. 2005-2619
Application No. 09/734,826
Uehara 4,961,177 Oct. 2, 1990
Shirai Satoru et al. (Shirai)1JP 11-249227 Sep. 17, 1999
Schaffrina DE 004028670 A1 Mar. 12, 1992
(We will refer to the pagination of the translation dated 8/12/2003 from EAST)
Schneiderman, “Touchscreens now offer compelling uses,” IEEE Software, Vol. 8, No.
2, pp. 93-94, March 1991.
Claims 1-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Uehara
in view Shirai and Schaffrina. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Uehara in view Shirai, Schaffrina, and Schneiderman.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(mailed July 28, 2004) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections, and to
the brief (filed June 14, 2004) for appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
1 We will follow the examiner’s and appellant’s labels to this reference for uniformity and clarity.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007