Appeal No. 98-3292
Application 08/611,848
Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary is “composed of
constituent parts making a whole.” The device taught by
Grant meets both of the above definitions.
Appellants have argued that the examiner is disregarding
the conventional use of the term “keypad” in the trade and
giving it a broader meaning. Appellants urge (brief, page 8)
that in this case
the term ‘keypad’ is being used clearly to identify an
integrated rubber-type (elastomeric) device that is not
within a housing as the examiner would lead you to
believe. The “keypad” of the present invention is more
akin to the rubber keypads found in the enclosed product
sheets.
In addition, appellants have stated that
[i]f the ordinary meaning of ‘keypad’ includes separate
multiple keypads within one housing as shown in Grant,
then the Applicant [sic] herein is certainly using it
differently.
Based on our determinations supra, after properly
evaluating the claim language in light of and consistent with
appellants’ specification and drawings as they would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, we
must agree with appellants that the examiner has given the
“keypad” terminology as set forth in independent claims 1, 6,
12 and 18 on appeal an unduly broad construction. The key
sets seen in Grant that were pointed to by the examiner as
being associated with or integrated into the housing (12) are
not shown or disclosed as being integrally formed or molded as
part of a one-piece contiguous keypad as we have concluded
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007