Appeal No. 95-3991
Application 08/233,546
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 21 based
on the prior art applied by the examiner.
2. The rejection of claim 23.
Claim 23 depends from claim 21 and adds the step of
selecting a particular one of the plurality of keyboard
configurations to over-ride the keyboard configuration
provided by the system in response to data read by a card
reader. Since claim 23 depends from claim 21, the prior art
teachings of Winn, Sklarew and Dunkley also do not suggest the
invention of claim 23. However, the examiner has added the
teachings of Thrower and Hirsch in support of the rejection of
claim 23. Thrower and Hirsch each teaches the concept of
varying the appearance of a keyboard display to enhance the
security of data input. In our view, the additional teachings
of Thrower and Hirsch would have suggested to the artisan the
obviousness of broadly changing keyboard configurations on a
touch screen display. The examiner also cites the general art
of automated teller machines (ATMs) as an example of using a
personal card to enter data into a business terminal.
Finally, the examiner also asserts that the configuration of
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007