Appeal No. 1997-0403
Application 08/174,215
The Examiner considers claim 10 to be a method claim
corresponding directly to the apparatus in claim 4 and
rejects it for the reasons stated with respect to claim 4.
Appellants disagree that claim 10 is an exact
restatement of claim 4 in method form, but argue that even
granting that the two claims generally track one another,
the rejection of claim 10 should be reversed for the reasons
stated with respect to claim 4 (RBr3).
Claim 10 recites "a keyboard having a plurality of
unmodified keys, one of said keys being a special function
key, selected others of said plurality of keys preselected
to indicate mouse pointing operations when said special
function key is active," which requires that the mouse
pointing keys are selected from the "plurality of unmodified
keys." As discussed in the rejection of claim 4, we find
that the use of "unmodified keys" is not disclosed or
suggested in Franz. Thus, the Examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness. The rejection
of claim 10 is reversed.
Claim 1
- 10 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007