Appeal No. 96-1347
Application 08/207,469
Claim 7 recites varying the distance a cursor is moved in
accordance with the number of fingertips moved across the
device. The examiner dismisses that limitation as lacking in
criticality. To the contrary, the invention as a whole
includes the variable distance feature, which is not suggested
by Logan. Thus, the rejection of Claim 7 is not sustained.
Claims 8, 9, 12-14, 16, and 18-19
The inventions of claims 8, 9, 12-14, 16, and 18-19 sense
different numbers of fingers and/or combinations of fingers to
input different characters into a computer. Bequaert senses
different combinations of keys (or fixed positions in a touch
sensor) to input different characters. The examiner finds no
difference, whereas appellants argue that sensing fingers is
different than sensing key positions.
Claims undergoing examination are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification,
and limitations appearing in the specification are not to be
read into the claims. In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225
USPQ 1, 5 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (in banc). In the present case,
the disclosure makes clear that sensing fingers is distinct
from sensing the depression of keys or positions. As shown in
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007