Appeal No. 1996-4065
Application No. 08/234,115
a pre-programmed mode) and then the “single” key that when
activated will “control different operations in at least two
of said apparatus” as claimed. We find that Evans meets the
recited claim language.
Appellant further argues:
In particular, Appellant submits that
neither Evans, Enomoto nor Smith teaches or suggests
the features recited in Claim 5 wherein some keys on
the keyboard are single function keys, some keys are
plural function keys, and a determination is made if
an actuated key is a plural function key. (Emphasis
added.) (Brief-page 8.)
The Examiner responds:
Regarding Appellant’s argument that Smith
does not teach distinguishing between single and
plural function keys, this feature is taught by both
Evans and Enomoto in the combination of the
references applied in the rejection. (Answer-page
10.)
Although the Examiner has shown the use of plural
function keys in Evans and Enomoto, there is no evidence
proffered, nor can we find a teaching, of a method step of
“determining if the actuated key is a plural function key” as
claimed in claim 5. Thus we will not sustain the rejection of
claims 5 through 8 using the Evans, Enomoto and Smith
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007