Appeal 2007-1430
Application 10/407,696
The issue, therefore, is whether the width of the traces or the arrangement of
the traces with respect to the underlying image avoids obstruction of the
image.
Clancy states (col. 5, ll. 26-29) that when the traces are not
transparent, the traces may interfere with the image. Clancy (col. 5, ll. 29-
32) solves the problem of interference to improve visualization of the image
not only by positioning the image appropriately and making it sufficiently
bold but also by sizing the array of traces. Clancy states (col. 5, ll. 33-37)
that images 27 and 28 are "sized sufficiently large to be viewed even if they
are partially obscured by capacitive elements 74 or traces 72 or 76."
Furthermore, Clancy discloses (col. 4, lines 56-60) that the capacitive
elements along the traces should be substantially longer than they are wide
to lessen interference with light passing through the touchscreen. Thus,
Clancy teaches that making the capacitive elements and traces fairly narrow
relative to the size of the image prevents deleterious obstruction of the
image. Accordingly, we will sustain the anticipation rejection of claims 1
through 5, 7, 9 through 11, 13, 15 through 20, 22 through 24, 26 through 28,
31, 33 through 39, 41 through 46, 50, and 52.
Regarding claims 12, 21, and 40, Appellant additionally contends (Br.
10-11) that Clancy's traces are not substantially opaque, as required by the
claims. Thus, the second issue is whether Clancy teaches substantially
opaque traces. Clancy discloses (col. 4, ll. 30-34) that the traces may be
formed by silkscreening or printing conductive ink on the transparent
membrane. Clancy continues in the subsequent paragraph (col. 4, ll. 35-41)
that the traces may instead be formed of a transparent conductive material
such as indium tin oxide. From the juxtaposition of the conductive ink and
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013