Appeal No. 96-1904
Application 08/164,854
597, 600 (CCPA 1971). In the present case, we conclude that
the content of claims 20 and 21 can be reasonably understood,
not- withstanding the breadth thereof. Since the metes and
bounds of
the claimed subject matter are ascertainable, the claims are
not indefinite.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
We reverse the rejection of claim 1, but affirm the
rejection of claim 20.
The segmented computer keyboard of claim 1 requires,
inter alia, a left and right hand keyboard that may be
operated “independently of supporting surfaces.” Following
our analysis of claim 1, supra, this quoted recitation is
taken to mean that the operation of the keyboard is carried
out independent of
supporting structural surfaces. In other words, the language
clearly infers operation of the keyboard while only being
supported by a user.
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007