Appeal No. 96-1904
Application 08/164,854
generation would have simply been to gain the expected and
known advantage of informing or alerting the operator.
As to the argument advanced by appellant in the
matter of the rejection of claims 10, 13, 16, and 19, we do
not find ourselves persuaded thereby. Appellant’s focus upon
the specific teachings of each of Louis and Hagelstein fails
to take into
account what the entirety of their teachings together would
have
suggested to one having ordinary skill in the keyboard. With
that perspective, we have concluded that the subject matter of
claims 10, 13, 16, and 19 would have been obvious.
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
Under the authority of 37 CFR § 1.196(b), this panel
of the board introduces the following new ground of rejection.
23
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007