Appeal 2007-1231
Application 10/186,922
have no effect on the outcome of the Machine Type Determination routine
(Reply Brief 3: 10-16).
11. The Examiner’s principal argument is that Payne meets the claim
because, as in Appellant’s invention, Payne recites a process of determining
machine type by initiating and performing a scan (Answer 10: 14-16).
12. The Examiner acknowledges that the keypad of Payne (Figs. 2-5,
any of 42a-42d) corresponds to the “keypad matrix” claimed (Answer 3: 7).
13. The Examiner notes that Appellant’s Specification explains that
“a ‘short’ in accordance with the present invention can take various forms
including an overall shorted keypad, the use of a zero-ohm jumper or other
resistor or component that would simulate one or more permanently closed
keys within keypad matrix 94” (Specification 6: 25 - 7: 3).
14. Because the term “short” is defined by Appellant to include a
zero-ohm jumper or other resistor, the Examiner reads the jumpers taught by
Payne (e.g., Figure 3, connecting pins C1.1 and C1.5, or Figure 4,
connecting pins C1.2 and C1.3) as corresponding to the ‘shorts’ to be sensed
during the claimed keypad matrix scan (Answer 11: 4-14).
15. The wiring harness connector of Payne (Figs. 2-5, any of C1a-
C1d) contains no keys, buttons, switches, or other elements that a user may
manipulate to select an option or enter data.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Anticipation is established when a single prior art reference discloses
expressly or under the principles of inherency each and every limitation of
the claimed invention. Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013