Appeal No. 2006-1831
Application No. 09/755,383
claimed limitation of 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 would have been obvious over
the combination of Hannaford and Noll. It is therefore our view,
after consideration of the record before us, that the evidence
relied upon and the level of skill in the particular art would
have suggested to the ordinarily skilled artisan the invention as
set forth in claims 47-50, 52, 54, 56-60, 71-73, 75, 77-80.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
47-50, 52, 54, 56-60, 71-73, 75, 77-80.
II. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, is the Rejection of Claims 51, 53,
55, 61-68, 74 and 76 as Being Unpatentable over the combination
of Hannaford, Noll and Zilles Proper?
With respect to dependent claims 3 51, 53, 55, 61-68, 74
and 76, Appellants argue at page 5 of the Appeal Brief that the
Hannaford and Noll combination does not teach the touchpad
3 We note that Appellants failed to particularly discuss the limitations of
these dependent claims in the Briefs. Instead, Appellants rely on their
earlier discussion of the limitations of independent claim 47, 60 and 71,
which they incorporate by reference in each instance. Consequently, these
dependent claims stand or fall with representative claim 47.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007