Ex parte STANTON et al. - Page 15




          Appeal No. 98-3292                                                           
          Application 08/611,848                                                       


          key pad of Goldenberg and to the elastomeric shock pad (42) in               
          the lower portion of the housing (40) of Goldenberg, urging                  
          that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in                  
          the art to combine the teachings of Goldenberg with the                      
          keypad/keyboard of Grant “for the advantage of the shock                     
          absorbing keys” (final rejection, page 6).  Even if such a                   
          combination were made, we must agree with appellants that the                
          resulting structure would not be that set forth in appellants’               
          claims 12, 14, 15 and 17 on appeal, wherein the first, second                
          and third sets of keys are “all integrally formed on one                     
          contiguous keypad,” as such terminology has been interpreted                 
          by this panel of the Board above.  For that reason, we will                  
          not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 12, 14, 15 and                
          17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.                                                    
          In rejecting dependent claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as                     
          being unpatentable over Grant, Goldenberg and Roth, the                      
          examiner has relied upon the teachings in Roth concerning its                
          use of conductive carbon ink pads (410), urging that it would                
          have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use                 
          such pads in Grant as modified by Goldenberg.  Again, since we               
          see nothing in the collective teachings of the applied                       
          references which would have rendered obvious the one-piece,                  
          integrally formed, contiguous keypad defined in appellants’                  
          claims 12 and 13, we will not sustain the examiner’s                         
          rejection.                                                                   
          Under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.196(b), we enter the                        
          following new ground of rejection against all of the claims on               
          appeal.                                                                      
          Claims 1 through 4, 6 through 15 and 17 through 20 are                       
          rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as failing                 
          to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject                   
          matter which appellants regard as their invention.  More                     
          specifically, as we noted supra, the recitation in each of the               
          claims on appeal concerning certain of the sets of keys                      
          “residing on a first plane,” while another set of keys is said               
          to be “residing on a second plane” is indefinite, because                    
          although the language of the claims clearly convey that the                  

                                          15                                           





Page:  Previous  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007