Appeal No. 1998-0631
Application 07/957,990
considered at all (Br14);(3) the rejection directly
contradicts MPEP § 806.04(f) because claims 1 and 2 cannot
be mutually exclusive (Br16-17).
We agree with Appellant's arguments. In addition, what
is persuasive is that the specification at page 13, line 26,
to page 15, line 7, clearly indicates that an alternative to
the annunciation of any single keystroke being made at a
level higher than a predetermined threshold is to "define
distinct physical regions of the keyboard, and compile key
pressure information with respect to the regions"
(specification, p. 13, line 30 to p. 14, line 1) or "to
compile pressure information with respect to characteristics
of the characters being typed" (specification, p. 14,
lines 13-15). Although not relied on in the brief, this
description was mentioned by Appellant earlier in the
prosecution because the Examiner stated that "this portion
of the specification [pages 13-14] relates to Figs. 11-12
(species 3 and 4, respectively), not Fig. 4" (OA4). The
Examiner clearly errs in finding these statements at
pages 13-14 of the specification to be limited to figures 11
and 12. This description applies to processing of the
- 19 -
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007