Appeal 2007-0802
Application 10/317,930
movement of the display in relation to the body, which is absent in Sharder’s
disclosure.
With respect to claim 10, we note that the Examiner relies on each of
the stimulus points as the membrane that contacts the localized area of the
user’s body (Answer 7 & 12). Although the claim does not specify whether
a single membrane covers all the stimulus points or each point may have a
separate membrane, the claim does not exclude an environment wherein a
plurality of membranes are each held over a fluid opening at each stimulus
point, as argued by the Examiner. The great breadth of the claim
notwithstanding, the prior art does describe the haptic display as a touchpad
sensitive to pressure wherein the matrix elements convert the received
sensory data to produce a tactile graphic display.
B. Claim rejection based on Sharder, Lake and Kravtsov
With respect to the rejection of claims 4 and 20, we also disagree with
Appellants that Kravtsov lacks a teaching related to the claimed density of
the stimulus points. Kravtsov describes the spacing in terms of the
separation of each point in relationship with the resolution of the generated
display signal (col. 7, ll. 39-44) which reasonably defines a resolution of one
rod per 0.5 mm.
Thus, based on our analysis above, we find that one of ordinary skill
in the art would have found the Examiner’s reliance on the combination of
Sharder, Lake and Kravtsov to be reasonable in rendering the subject matter
of claim 4 obvious.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013