Appeal No. 2006-1831
Application No. 09/755,383
An obviousness analysis commences with a review and
consideration of all the pertinent evidence and arguments. “In
reviewing the [E]xaminer’s decision on appeal, the Board must
necessarily weigh all of the evidence and argument.” Oetiker,
977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444. “[T]he Board must not only
assure that the requisite findings are made, based on evidence of
record, but must also explain the reasoning by which the findings
are deemed to support the agency’s conclusion.” In re Lee, 277
F.3d 1338, 1344, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
With respect to the cited claims, Appellants argue in the
Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief that Hannaford does not teach a
touchpad sensor for detecting the position and motion of an
object in an x-y plane, as well as for detecting the degree of
force applied to the touchpad sensor in a z-direction to thereby
output a signal based on the detected position, motion and degree
of force. Particularly, at page 4 of the Appeal Brief,
Appellants state the following:
Hannaford et al does not disclose a touchpad sensor.
Rather, Hannaford et al discloses a planar assembly 20 which
supports an end effector 18 by way of chains 26, 28 and 30
such that the end effector can be moved in the x-y plane.
The planar assembly itself is supported by links 68 and 70
to be movable in the z-direction. There is no suggestion in
Hannaford et al of the use of a touchpad sensor, or of a
linkage coupling the touchpad sensor with an object in the
manner of the present invention. Instead, in Hannaford et
al, a much more complex and massive arrangement is used,
none of the components of which can be equated with the
touchpad sensor of the present invention, or with the
linkage coupling the touchpad sensor with an object. This
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007