Appeal No. 2005-2666
Application No. 09/496,634
APPEALED SUBJECT MATTER
According to the appellants (Brief, page 2):
Claims 1-8, 10, 11, 13-15, 21 and 24-40, 47, 49 and 50
stand or fall together.
Claims 41-46 and 48 stand or fall together.
Therefore, for purposes of this appeal, we select claims 10 and
44 as representative of all of the claims on appeal and decide
the propriety of the examiner’s rejection set forth in the Answer
based on these claims alone consistent with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)
(2003) and 37 CFR § 42.37(C)(1)(vii)(2004). Claims 10 and 44 are
reproduced below:
10. A touch screen having a user interface
configured for receiving a touch input from a user,
comprising:
a film, wherein the touch screen is configured to
provide visual indicia through the film, the film
having an exterior side closer to the touch input and
an interior said farther from the touch input; and
an anti-reflective coating including a first layer
adjacent the interior side, a second layer adjacent the
first layer, and a third layer adjacent the second
layer so that the second layer is between the first
layer and third layer, wherein the third layer has a
sheet resistivity of at least about 200 ohms per square
and is configured to sense a positions of the touch
input.
44. The touch screen of Claim 10 wherein the anti-
reflective coating means is configured to provide a
reflection of less than about 4 percent at an air
interface associated with the touch screen.
Contrary to the appellants’ allegation in the amended Brief and
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007