Appeal 2007-0802
Application 10/317,930
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, Appellants have failed to show that the
Examiner erred in rejecting the claims or the rejections are not supported by
a legally sufficient basis for holding that the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to the skilled artisan all of the claimed
limitations. Accordingly, based on the teachings of the prior art outlined
supra, we agree with the Examiner’s position that the claimed tactile graphic
display is taught by the combination of the references and sustain the
rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-13 under § 103(a) over the combination of
Sharder and Lake and of claim 4 over the combination of Sharder, Lake and
Kravtsov. However, we reach the opposite conclusion with respect to the
rejection of claims 14-20.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is affirmed but is reversed with respect to claims 14-20.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013