Appeal No. 96-1904
Application 08/164,854
In applying the test for obviousness, we reach the 10
conclusion that it would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art, from a combined assessment of the
applied prior art, to modify the keys of a typical computer
keyboard, e.g., the
keyboard of Rader, by combining the already known functions of
single keys, e.g., alphabet keys, with the known function of
other keys, e.g., arrow keys or function keys, to further
effect additional multi-purpose or multi-function keys. From
our standpoint, the incentive on the part of one having
ordinary
skill in the art for making this modification would have
simply been to gain the art-recognized and expected advantage
thereof, i.e., fewer keys on the keyboard, as clearly
disclosed by either the IBM reference or Leipzig. For this
reason, we determine that the subject matter of each of claims
10The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings
of references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089,
1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208
USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
19
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007