Appeal No. 1998-0631
Application 07/957,990
In claims 1, 24, 97, 117 and 206, it is unclear if
the pressure sensing means being "responsive to
pressure upon particular ones of the keys ..." implies
that there are other keys besides the "particular ones"
to which the pressure sensing means isn't responsive;
in other words, it is unclear if the pressure sensing
means is intended to distinguish between one "subset"
of the keys on a keyboard (i.e., the "particular ones"
of the keys) to which it is responsive, and other
"subsets" of the keys on the keyboard (i.e., one or
more subsets NOT including the "particular ones") to
which it isn't responsive.
Appellant argues that the claims were amended at the
Examiner's request and the reference to "particular ones"
merely means that the two "pressings" in the claims
correspond to each other (Br25-26).
Appellant does not answer the Examiner's reasoning.
Nevertheless, we reverse the rejection. The "particular
ones of the keys" in claim 1 could be all, or a subset of
all the keys of the keyboard. This is a broad limitation,
not an indefinite one. Claim breadth should not be confused
with indefiniteness. See In re Miller, 441 F.2d 689, 693,
169 USPQ 597, 600 (CCPA 1971). The rejection of claims 1,
24, 97, 117, and 206 is reversed.
Twelfth issue - claim 28
The Examiner states (OA6):
- 34 -
Page: Previous 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007