Appeal No. 96-0899
Application 07/863,216
With regard to claim 6, appellants argue that the
second plurality of keys recited therein are distinguishable "and
distinguished by the specification, from the first recited set"
[brief, page 11]. We agree with the examiner that the function
keys of Auer (each key has some function) may be considered to be
two groups of function keys, i.e., a first and second
predetermined number of function keys, and that the "second
predetermined number of function keys," set forth in claim 6, is
indistinguishable from a first such set. There is nothing set
forth in claim 6 which distinguishes these functions from any
other functions of the first predetermined number of operable
keys. While appellants explain, at pages 11-12 of the brief,
that the specification discloses two pluralities of keys and that
two right-hand, nonilluminated keys, MOVE and ENTER keys, are the
function keys, none of this forms part of instant claim 6 and,
again, we will not read the disclosed limitations into the claims
where the claims do not include such limitations.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claim 6
under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Turning now to claim 8, this claim calls for, inter
alia, the coded selectively operable keys to correspond to a
predetermined physician order, that the controllers are
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007