Appeal No. 95-3991
Application 08/233,546
fail to see how the broad teaching of an ability to move a
window in the Windows operating environment would have
suggested the claimed step of moving the location of a
keyboard depiction on the touch screen of a business terminal.
The examiner has not applied any prior art which relates to
the claimed security feature of selecting one of a plurality
of different locations on a touch screen for displaying a
depiction of a keyboard. We do not sustain the rejection of
claim 33 based on the applied references.
Claim 34 depends from claim 33 and is rejected on the
same combination of references. Therefore, the rejection of
claim 33 clearly cannot be sustained. We note for the record,
however, that the examiner now argues that Thrower teaches the
changing of keyboard locations as recited in the claim
[answer, page 24]. We view Thrower as teaching the relocation
of keys within the keyboard area, but not the relocation of
the keyboard itself. Specifically, Thrower teaches
"scrolling" the character-to-key assignments to make it
impractical for an observer to interpret the inputted
information. Thrower states that "[b]y 'scrolling' the array
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007