Appeal No. 2006-1831
Application No. 09/755,383
As the pen-like tool interfaces with the direct drive
manipulator, a control point stored in the manipulator senses the
motion and position of the pen, as well as the degree of force
that the pen is applying upon the surface of the manipulator to
provide a haptic feedback the operator holding the pen. One of
ordinary skill in the art would have duly recognized that
Hannaford’s teaching of the control point is functionally
equivalent to the claimed touchpad sensor, as they both serve the
purpose of sensing the position, motion and the degree of force
of an object (e.g. a pen or a mouse) as it moves across the
surface of a direct drive manipulator or a touchpad. Thus, the
ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to use
Hannaford’s disclosed control point in conjunction with
Appellant’s mouse to provide a force feedback to the user while
operating the mouse.
Appellants also argue that Noll does not teach the touchpad
sensor either, and thus, it does not cure the deficiencies of
Hannaford. As noted in the discussion above, we find no such
deficiencies in Hannaford for Noll to cure. In consequence, we do
not find error in the Examiner’s position, stating that the
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007