Appeal 2006-2955
Application 09/991,140
only the specific teachings of the references but also the inferences which
one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. In re
Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner correctly points out that claim 1 does not necessarily
require using the same finger to make another selection after the first key
selection is made (Answer, 11). The claim merely recites selecting the
second key with “the user’s finger or stylus” which includes using the user’s
other finger or selecting the second key without releasing the first key. In
either case, the claimed limitation would have read on a concurrent selection
of the two keys, as disclosed by Stone. In other words, the claims are not
necessarily limited to sequential key strokes using the same finger.
Although the Specification is directed to a sequence of key strokes, holding
the first selected key while the second key is selected is not precluded. The
claims also allow for a broader interpretation that includes using different
fingers for key selection or even concurrent key strokes.
Therefore, based on the teachings of Stone, Novel, and Smith outlined
supra, and to the extent claimed, we agree with the Examiner’s position that
the claimed key selection reads on the prior art concurrent key selection.
Accordingly, we remain unconvinced by Appellants’ assertion that the
Examiner erred in rejecting Claim 1 under § 103(a) over the combination of
Stone with Novel and Smith. Similar to claim 1, independent claims 13, 24,
and 25 include limitations directed to the layout of the characters on a
telephone keypad and the two-key selection of each character, which are
shown to be taught or suggested by the applied prior art. Therefore, we
sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent claims 1, 13, 24, and
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013