Appeal No. 2006-3016
Application No. 10/212,240
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 12 and 22 over Mitani and
Schrock, Appellant asserts that the touch controls disclosed by Schrock are in an
entirely different assembly and cannot be combined with Mitani (Br. 16). We
agree with the Examiner (Answer 20-21) that the principles of operation of touch
sensitive controls in a camera, as disclosed by Schrock, are applicable to other
devices such as a television since similar functions are intended. Therefore, we
sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 12 and 22 over Mitani and Schrock.
Lastly, turning to the rejection of the remaining claims over various
combinations of Mitani with Yamada, Schrock and Takiguchi, we note that
Appellant relies on similar arguments presented above with respect to claim 1. We
sustain these rejections as well. Since we agree with the Examiner, as previously
discussed, that Mitani can be reasonably interpreted as providing the claimed front
screen, we find no error in the Examiner’s finding of obviousness as taught by the
combination of Mitani with Yamada, Schrock or Takiguchi. Accordingly, we
sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 6 and 15 over Mitani and Yamada,
as well as the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 13 over Mitani, Schrock and
Takiguchi.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013