Appeal 2006-2955
Application 09/991,140
The rejections as presented by the Examiner are as follows:
1. Claims 1-25 and 28-37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Stone, Novel, and Smith.
2. Claims 26 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Stone, Novel, and Smith and further in view of Prame.
Rather than reiterate the opposing arguments, reference is made to the
Briefs and the Answer for the respective positions of Appellants and the
Examiner. Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been
considered in this decision. Arguments which Appellants could have made
but chose not to make in the Briefs have not been considered (37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)).
ISSUE
The issue is whether Applicants have shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (2004). Appellants focus on
Stone’s concurrent actuation of keys and argue that such method is not the
same as the claimed method where the same finger or stylus makes two
separate key selections (Br. 10-16; Reply Br. 2-3). The issue turns on
whether the combination of Stone with Novel and Smith teaches or suggests
the claimed subject matter. Specifically, the issue is:
whether the prior art teachings disclose or suggest the claimed
subject matter including key selection with a user’s finger or
stylus and then making a second selection using the user’s
finger or selection?
FINDINGS OF FACT
Appellants’ claim 1 requires selecting a first character having a first
marking on a first one of said 8 keys by first selecting the first key with a
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013