Appeal No. 2006-1831
Application No. 09/755,383
shortcoming is not remedied by Noll, even if the latter were
properly combinable with Hannaford et al., a point which has
not been adequately advanced in the rejection of the claims
and which is not conceded by Applicants.
In order for us to decide the question of obviousness,
“[t]he first inquiry must be into exactly what the claims
define.” In re Wilder, 429 F.2d 447, 450, 166 USPQ 545, 548 (CCPA
1970). “Analysis begins with a key legal question-- what is the
invention claimed ?”...Claim interpretation...will normally
control the remainder of the decisional process.” Panduit Corp.
v. Dennison Mfg., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567-68, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597
(Fed. Cir. 1987), cert denied, 481 U.S. 1052 (1987).
We note that representative claim 47 reads in part as
follows:
a touchpad sensor configured to detect a position and
motion of an object in an x-y plane, said touchpad sensor
further configured to detect a degree of force applied to
said touchpad sensor in a z-direction and to output at
least one sensor signal, the sensor signal being based on
the position of the object, the motion of the object and
the detected degree of force.
We note that at paragraphs 101 through 103, Appellants’
specification states the following:
[0101] FIG. 4f is a perspective view of another alternate
embodiment of a sensing system including a planar sensor
162. Sensor 162 includes a planar sensor or "touch pad"
161 having rectangular sensing area and a pointer 162.
Planar sensor 161 is preferably positioned somewhere
beneath linkage 40; it is shown approximately at the
position of opening 76 in FIG. 4f, but can be provided in
other positions as well. Pointer 162 is coupled to
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007