Ex parte STANTON et al. - Page 16




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


          planes in question are part of the keypad itself, the                        
          specification of the present application seems to indicated                  
          that the first and second planes are some other planes of the                
          overall call receiving device with which the key sets are                    
          apparently operatively or functionally associated to                         
          electrically activate some portion of the device.  However,                  
          claims 1 through 4, 12 through 15 and 17 through 20 are                      
          directed to a key pad per se, without any recitation of the                  
          type of device or other structure with which it might be                     
          associated.  Although claim 6 on appeal is directed to a                     
          “selective call receiver assembly” which includes a keypad                   
          wherein the sets of keys are all integrally formed on one                    
          contiguous keypad, the recitations concerning the first and                  
          second planes are still ambiguous since                                      
          such planes are not clearly and properly defined in the                      
          context of what appellants view as their invention.  The                     
          recitation in claims 4, 11 and 15 that the third set of keys                 
          includes a pair of keys residing under a rocker switch, and in               
          claim 12 concerning the third set of keys “residing below a                  
          rocker switch and further residing on a second plane”                        
          (emphasis added), merely adds to the confusion about exactly                 
          what structure is being defined in these claims.                             


          In view of the foregoing, the examiner's decision                            
          rejecting claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first                      
          paragraph, is affirmed, but the decision rejecting claims 1                  
          through 4 and 18 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) relying                 
          on Grant, the decision rejecting claims 6, 7 and 10 under 35                 
          U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Gutman, and the decision rejecting                  
          claims 8, 9, 11 through 15 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are                  
          each reversed.  In                                                           
          addition, pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we have entered a new               
          ground of rejection against claims 1 through 4, 6 through 15                 
          and 17 through 20 on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second                    
          paragraph.                                                                   
          The decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.                            


                                          16                                           





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007