Appeal No. 2005-2666
Application No. 09/496,634
Reply Brief, the “DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED
EMBODIMENTS” section of the specification defines the preferred
touch screens encompassed by the claims on appeal as follows
(page 5, lines 18-21):
With reference to Figures 1 and 2, a touch screen 10 is
embodied as Dynaclear 4-wire analog resistive touchTm
panel. Alternatively, screen 10 can be a matrix touch
screen, or other type of apparatus for sensing touches.
Touch screen 10 includes a flex layer 20, a spacer 30,
and a stable layer 40. (Emphasis added.)
PRIOR ART
The prior art references relied upon by the examiner are:
Kuhlman 4,786,767 Nov. 22, 1988
Olson et al. (Olson) 6,261,700 B1 Jul. 17, 2001
(Filed May 27, 1999)
REJECTION
Claims 1 through 8, 10, 11, 13 through 15, 21 and 24 through
50 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combined disclosures of Kuhlman and Olson.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and
applied prior art, including all of the arguments advanced by the
examiner and the appellants in support of their respective
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007