Ex parte BLISH - Page 3




                 Appeal No. 96-1904                                                                                                                     
                 Application 08/164,854                                                                                                                 


                 (Germany)  (Leipzig)2                  3                                                                                                 
                 IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, “KEYBOARD FOR HANDHELD                                                                              
                 COMPUTER,” Vol. 27, No. 10A, pages 5643 through 5645, March,                                                                           
                 1985 (IBM reference)                                                                                                                   


                                   The following rejections are before us for review.                                                                   


                                   Claims 1 and 3 through 8 stand rejected under 35                                                                     
                 U.S.C.  § 112, first paragraph, for the reason that the                                                                                
                 specification, as originally filed, does not provide support                                                                           
                 for the recitation that the keyboard may be operated                                                                                   
                 “independently of supporting surfaces” (claim 1).                                                                                      


                                   Claims 20 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §                                                                    
                 112, second paragraph, as being broad to the extent that they                                                                          




                          2Our understanding of this document is derived from a                                                                         
                 reading of a translation thereof prepared in the United States                                                                         
                 Patent and Trademark Office.  A copy of the translation was                                                                            
                 appended to the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 14).                                                                                      
                          3We will refer to this reference as the Leipzig document                                                                      
                 for consistency with the usage by both the examiner and                                                                                
                 appellant.                                                                                                                             
                                                                           3                                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007