Appeal No. 96-1904
Application 08/164,854
The full text of the examiner's rejections and
response to the argument presented by appellant appears in the
answer (Paper No. 14), while the complete statement of
appellant’s argument can be found in the revised brief (Paper
No. 13).4
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the issues raised
in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully con-
sidered appellant’s specification and claims, the applied 5
4All subsequent references to the brief refer to the
revised brief. Additionally, we note appellant’s commentary
regarding the lack of a translation of the Leipzig reference
(brief, pages 14, 15, 18, and 19). A copy of the translation
of this reference was provided by the examiner as an
attachment to the answer (Paper No. 14). No reply brief was
submitted by appellant.
5While certain claims include obvious informalities
there- in, we nevertheless comprehend the metes and bounds
thereof which enables us to address the content thereof
relative to the applied prior art. For example, we understand
claim 3 as including keys which serve an alphabetic function
and additionally a numeric function. In claim 7 (and
similarly in claim 17), we understand “Numeric function” to
denote --Numeric, function--. In claim 12, line 2; claim 15,
line 2; and claim 18, line 2, we understand “said alphabetical
keys” to correspond to the “alphabetic keys” earlier recited
(continued...)
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007