Appeal No. 96-1904
Application 08/164,854
The broad language of claim 20 is anticipated by
conventional keys of a typical keyboard, as represented by the
applied references. For example, the computer keyboard of
Rader (column 1, line 7, through column 2, line 29) has
conventional
keys, i.e., a number of keys, which serve a multiple purpose
as alphabetic keys and numeric keys. Thus, like appellant’s
multiple purpose keys, e.g., alphabetic key “P” for the
purpose of denoting a “P” and numeric key “ O” for the3
purpose of denoting a “3,” typical keyboards such as that of
Rader (Figure 3) like- wise include keys which serve a
multiple purpose, i.e., an alphabetic key “P” for the purpose
of denoting a “P” and a numeric key “3” for the purpose of
denoting a “3.” Accordingly, broad claim 20 is appropriately
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
The argument presented by appellant relative to
claim 20 (brief, pages 10 and 11) is not convincing. Simply
stated, it is apparent to us that appellant has not
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007