Appeal No. 95-3991
Application 08/233,546
references applied by the examiner. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 35.
5. The rejection of claim 36.
Claim 36 has a recitation substantially the same as
the recitation quoted from claim 35 above. None of the
applied prior art teaches this feature for reasons discussed
above. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim
36.
6. The rejection of claim 37.
Claim 37 is broader in many respects than the other
independent claims, but claim 37 recites the step of
overriding the provided keyboard configuration with a
configuration selected by the user in response to data read
from a personal card. All the arguments made by the examiner
in support of the rejection of claim 37 have been considered
in our discussion above. Appellants argue that "[n]owhere in
any of the references has there been found a showing or a
suggestion of the concept of employing data from a user’s
14
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007