Appeal No. 2006-1831
Application No. 09/755,383
sensor. We have already addressed this argument in the
discussion of claim 47 above, and we disagreed with Appellants.
Further, Appellants argue that Zilles does not cure the
deficiencies of Hannaford and Noll. As noted in the discussion
above, we find no such deficiencies in Hannaford and Noll for
Zilles to cure. In consequence, we do not find error in the
Examiner’s position, stating that the 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, Noll and Zilles. 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 51, 53, 55, 61-68, 74 and 76. Accordingly, we
will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 51, 53, 55, 61-
68, 74 and 76.
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007