Appeal No. 1998-0631
Application 07/957,990
keyboard and figure 12 shows plural keyboards. It does not
seem reasonable to us to consider the single keyboard
monitor of figure 11 to be a patentably distinct species
from the plural keyboard monitor of figure 12. Moreover,
the monitoring apparatus of figures 11 and 12 could be used
with either the special purpose keyboard 20' of figures 4
and 5 or the conventional keyboard 20 and keyboard
adaptor 90 arrangement of figures 7 and 8 and, so, species 3
and 4 are not mutually exclusive species from species 1 and
2. Finally, figures 13A and 13B (species 5) disclose a
wrist monitor which can (but does not have to) be used with
one of the pressure monitoring keyboards of figures 4 or 7
(specification, p. 15, line 8, to p. 16, line 10) and can be
used with the monitoring schemes of figures 11 and 12.
Thus, figures 13A and 13B represent either a separate
invention or an improvement on the pressure monitoring
embodiments of figures 4 and 7. Depending on how the
embodiment of figure 13 is claimed, it may or may not be
properly restrictable.
Assuming the restriction requirement was proper, we
agree with Appellant's argument (Br12-13) that the election
- 17 -
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007