Appeal 2007-0802
Application 10/317,930
one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. In re
Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
In identifying a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary
skill in the relevant field to combine the prior art teachings, the Examiner
must show some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness. KSR Int’l. v. Teleflex Inc., 127
S. Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
ANALYSIS
A. Claim rejection based on Sharder and Lake
The Examiner correctly characterizes Sharder’s system as the claimed
display apparatus since the sensory data generated at one device is
transmitted to the other device for activating the matrix elements to represent
the haptic sensory effect contained in the data (Answer 3-4). We disagree
with Appellants’ argument that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims
since Sharder fails to teach a scanning tactile apparatus which has the ability
to recreate the sensory perception of passage of a user’s body part over a
tactile display (Br. 14-15; Reply Br. 4-5). The Examiner’s failure to point to
any teachings in the applied references related to such “scanning”
notwithstanding, the term “scanning” merely appears in the preamble of
claims 1 and 8 without relating to any specific limitations in the claims.
“[A] claim preamble has the import that the claim as a whole suggests for
it.” Bell Communications Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Communications Corp.,
55 F.3d 615, 620, 34 USPQ2d 1816, 1820 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Where a
patentee uses the claim preamble to recite structural limitations of his
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013