Appeal No. 1998-0631 Application 07/957,990 of figure 4 (and figure 5) identifies a keyboard with internal pressure monitoring and processing capabilities. The Examiner holds that claims 2-8, 17-23, 31-44, 99-112, and 121-134 do not read on the elected species because (OA3): [T]hese claims are all directed to averaging signals over pre-defined subsets of keys. In contrast therewith, the description of the Fig. 4 embodiment at p. 6, line 25 to p. 7, line 5 teaches only that key-generated signals from all parts of the keyboard may be combined to form a single parameter, i.e. there are no predefined "subsets" of keys associated with the Fig. 4 embodiment. Thus, it appears that the Fig. 4 embodiment is unable to do any sort of "region averaging" or "shared characteristic" evaluation. The Examiner appreciates that a determination of whether claims are readable on an elected species is based on all parts of the disclosure which are directed to the elected species, but finds no description linking the rejected claims to figure 4 (OA4). Appellant responds: (1) the pressure transducers of figure 4 are capable of performing any type of averaging (i.e., any key, regions of keys, or types of keys) (Br13-14); (2) there is no other species to which the subject matter of the "rejected" claims can belong, thus denying Appellant the opportunity to have the claims - 18 -Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007