Ex Parte Jaeger et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 23, 2012

09670610 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 23, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
09/670,610 09/26/2000 Denny Jaeger 4143 4665
7590 01/23/2012
Harris Zimmerman Esq
1330 Broadway
Suite 710
Oakland, CA 94612
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, HAU H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2628
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/23/2012 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte DENNY JAEGER, KENNETH M. TWAIN, and JOHN REAM
____________

Appeal 2009-011973
Application 09/670,610
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, DEBRA K. STEPHENS,
and MICHAEL R. ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claim 97. Claims 1-93, 96, 98, 100, 101, 105-107, and 112 have been
canceled, and claims 94, 95, 99, 102-104, and 108-111 have been indicated
as containing allowable subject matter. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2009-011973
Application 09/670,610

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to touch screen input devices (see Spec.
4:2-7). The only claim under appeal reads as follows:
97. A system for providing input to a generally flat
touch screen, including:
a plurality of devices for interacting with the touch
screen, each device including a base member and means for
securing said base member to the touch screen;
means associated with said base member for provoking a
touch detection by the touch screen;
wherein said plurality of said devices are joined in a
crack-and-peel sheet.

The Examiner rejected claim 97 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon
the teachings of Selig (US 6,492,978 B1) and Varveris (US 6,249,277 B1).

ANALYSIS
The Examiner relies on Selig for disclosing all the claimed elements
except for joining the plurality of devices in a crack-and-peel sheet, for
which the Examiner relies on Varveris (Ans. 4-5). The Examiner further
finds that Varveris, as depicted in Figures 5-7, discloses a stylus having a
strap in the form of “hooks and loops fastener (such as Velcro® material)”
(Ans. 4). The Examiner reasons that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have joined the touch screen input devices of Selig in a crack-and-peel sheet
to provide a plurality of inputs to the touch screen (Ans. 4-5).
Appellants contend that the relied-on portion of Varveris does not
disclose assembling a plurality of touch screen input devices in a crack-and-
peel sheet (Br. 12). Appellants further assert that the fastener disclosed in
Varveris is different from the disputed claim feature because the term
Appeal 2009-011973
Application 09/670,610

3
“crack-and-peel” is a term of art which relates to sheets of labels or stickers
as described in Appellants’ Specification (id.; see also, Spec. 41, l. 21 –
Spec. 42, l. 3).
We agree with Appellants’ contentions above. Contrary to the
Examiner’s stated position (Ans. 6-7), the hooks and loops fastener or strap
of Varveris does not constitute a crack-and-peel sheet that joins a plurality of
input devices. We specifically agree with Appellants’ assertion (Br. 12) that
the solitary touch input device of Varveris does not teach or suggest the
claimed “plurality of said devices are joined in a crack-and-peel sheet” to the
skilled artisan.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claim 97 as being obvious because
the combination of references fails to teach or suggest all the claimed
features.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 97 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

REVERSED
ke