Appeal No. 95-3991
Application 08/233,546
by the prior art applied against claim 23. Therefore, we do
not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 23 based on the
prior art applied by the examiner.
3. The rejection of claims 33 and 34.
The examiner notes that claim 33 is parallel to claim
21 except that instead of dealing with a plurality of keyboard
configurations, claim 33 deals with a plurality of different
locations on different portions of the display, and claim 33
recites a "depiction" of the keyboard [answer, pages 10-11].
The examiner asserts that the different locations on different
portions of the display would have been obvious in view of the
applied prior art. The examiner also cites Windows as an
example of moving a keyboard during entry of information. The
examiner cites Cairns for teaching the changing of a keyboard
depiction [answer, page 11].
Appellants argue that the "references relied upon are
believed to be lacking in a showing or suggestion of a
capability of moving a keyboard configuration depiction to
different locations on a combined touch screen and display"
[brief, page 28]. We agree with appellants’ assessment. We
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007