Appeal No. 95-3991
Application 08/233,546
1. The rejection of claim 21.
The examiner asserts that Winn teaches the steps of
claim 21 except for the handwriting entry, the touch screen
and the signature verification. The examiner cites Sklarew
for teaching that handwriting entry on a touch screen is an
art-recognized alternative to keyboard entry. The examiner
cites Dunkley for teaching signature verification for security
purposes [answer, pages 5-6]. In the examiner’s view, all the
steps of claim 21 are suggested by these three references, and
the only issue is whether it would have been obvious to
combine the references within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103
[answer, pages 6-7].
Appellants argue that the references relied upon,
whether taken separately or in combination, do not show or
suggest the step of providing a chosen one of a plurality of
keyboard configurations as recited in step (a) of claim 21, or
the entering of personal identification data and a user
signature on the touch screen as recited in steps (c) and (e)
of claim 21 [brief, pages 21-22].
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007