Appeal No. 95-3991
Application 08/233,546
Although we can agree with the examiner that the broad
recitations of entering personal identification data and a
user signature on a touch screen would have been suggested to
the artisan by the applied prior art, we agree with appellants
that none of the applied prior art suggests the step of
providing a chosen one of a plurality of keyboard
configurations on the touch screen display. The preferred
embodiment of Winn uses a conventional, fixed keyboard 20.
Although Winn suggests that a touch screen could replace the
keyboard [column 6, lines 58-62], Winn would suggest nothing
more than that the fixed mechanical keyboard could be a fixed
touch screen keyboard. None of the art applied by the
examiner has any suggestion of a changing keyboard
configuration wherein the display represents different
keyboard values at different times.
Since the examiner has not identified how the applied
prior art teaches step (a) of claim 21, and since we can find
no basis in the applied prior art for the obviousness of step
(a) of claim 21, we conclude that the examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case for the obviousness of claim 21.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007