Appeal No. 95-3991
Application 08/233,546
an ATM is user-specified such as when making the multiple
language selection [answer, pages 8-10].
Appellants argue that "the examiner has failed to cite
as a reference any ATM machine which employs the process
recited in claim 21 or in which data is entered from a user’s
personal card by use of a reader to select a particular one of
a plurality of available keyboard configurations to over-ride
the keyboard configuration provided by the system, as recited
in claim 23" [brief, page 26].
We find ourselves in agreement with appellants. The
examiner’s reliance on the supposed operation of generic ATM
systems is unsupported by the prior art relied on in the
rejection. It is also clear that a user-selected input in any
of the machines of the applied prior art does not result in
the over-ride of a keyboard configuration. The applied prior
art teaches either the automatic changing of a keyboard
configuration (Thrower and Hirsch) or a keyboard configuration
which does not change at all (Winn). The examiner’s
contention that the applied prior art suggests the claimed
over-ride of a keyboard configuration simply is not supported
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007