Appeal No. 1998-0631
Application 07/957,990
not clearly represent a holding by the Group Director and,
in any case, is inconsistent with the Petition Decision
(Paper No. 17); thus, the Response Letter is not binding on
our decision.
The problem with the restriction requirement is that
the Examiner never identifies the structural features that
are characteristic of the allegedly patentably distinct
species. Thus, we start by analyzing the figures. Figure 4
(species 1) is directed to a special purpose keyboard 20'
having an internal pressure monitoring system. Figure 5
describes the internal configuration of keyboard 20' and
must be considered part of species 1. Figures 4 and 5 are
described in the specification at page 6, line 25, to
page 9, line 19. Figures 7 and 8 (species 2) are directed
to a conventional prior art keyboard 20 which sits in a
keyboard adaptor 90 (specification, p. 10, line 22, to
p. 11, line 14). Figure 11 (species 3) and figure 12
(species 4) show two hardware approaches for monitoring the
pressure signal with an external monitor if the optional
pressure data line 93 (of figures 5 and 8) is employed
(specification, p. 13, lines 1-25); figure 11 shows a single
- 16 -
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007