Appeal 2007-2446
Application 09/817,998
record to suggest that using a television as a tactile display was known in the
art or that one could use a television as a tactile display with only ordinary
experimentation. Typically, tactile communication devices provide a Braille
presentation of text, i.e. a static presentation. This type of presentation is
discussed in Appellant’s Specification. Television, on the other hand, is a
visual display format which typically provides moving images and, as such,
is more dynamic then text. We do not consider that one skilled in the art
would know how to apply a tactile notification using a dynamic visual
display such as television. Accordingly, we now reject claim 22 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as not being enabled by Appellant’s
disclosure.
CONCLUSION
Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 12, 15 through 16, 19 through 21,
and 23 through 25. Accordingly we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 1 through 12, 15 through 16, 19 through 21, and 23 through 25 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 (a).
However, Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 17, 18, and 22. Accordingly, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 17, 18, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a).
20 to be within the skill in the art as Lynt teaches that tactile communication
of phone calls was known at the time of the filing of the application (see fact
7).
17
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013