Appeal No. 08/911,596
Application No. 2001-2049
the data processing application and that the execution of the
data processing application includes “translating a first
plurality of user input signals to a first plurality of
translated data values.” Thus, there is a certain dependence of
some elements of the claim on other elements of the claim. By
the very language of the claim, it is not reasonable to read
“translating a first plurality of user input signals to a first
plurality of translated data values” on a keyboard because the
actions of a user accessing a keyboard cannot reasonably be
considered to be an “execution of the data processing
application” to which the selective modification is responsive.
Accordingly, since Greiner fails to show each and every
claim limitation, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 34-
37, 39 and 43 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a).
Since independent claim 5 includes the argued limitations of
independent claim 34, Voice Type was applied thereto merely to
show a speech to text application because Greiner does not
address the particulars of any application by suggesting
particular files or parameters one may wish to monitor, and Voice
Type does not provide for the deficiencies noted supra with
regard to claim 34, we also will not sustain the rejection of
claims 5, 38, 40 and 42 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
-7–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007