Appeal 2007-1436
Application 10/390,318
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Mattice US 6,454,649 B1 Sep. 24, 2002
Beaulieu US 2004/0166930 A1 Aug. 26, 2004
Diederiks US 2005/0030292 A1 Feb. 10, 2005
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1-9, 12-15, 17, 20-23, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Beaulieu and Diederiks.
2. Claims 16, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Beaulieu. Diederiks, and Mattice.1
ISSUE
Appellant contends that (1) “the ‘buttons’ of Diederiks’ relief generator
2002, 302 are not resiliently urged upward” and (2) “when a player presses down
on a Diederiks button, there is no detectable movement by the player and no tactile
feedback” (Appeal Br. 5). The Examiner found the combination of Beaulieu and
Diederiks teaches “actuators [that] physical[ly] move when pressed downwards by
the player and [are] resiliently urged upwards to provide a tactile feel to the player”
1 The Examiner’s listing of this rejection in the Answer states, “[c]laim [sic] 16, 18
and 19 is [sic, are] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Beaulieu as applied to claims 1-4, 7-15, 17, 20-25 above, and further in view of
Mattice (US Pat. 6,454,649)” (Answer 9). Although imprecisely stated by the
Examiner, since Diederiks was part of the rejection of independent claim 1, we
understand the rejection of claims 16, 18, and 19, which depend from claim 1, to
also include Diederiks as part of the rejection.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013