Appeal No. 1998-0631
Application 07/957,990
In claim 28, it is unclear if the "means receiving
key signals" (lines 2-3) is the same element as the
"input means ... for receiving the key signals" recited
in claim 24, lines 20-21.
Appellant responds that it is clear the two means are
not the same because the "input means" of claim 24 is an
element distinct from the processor because the "input
means" and processor are "operatively coupled," whereas the
"means receiving key signals" of claim 28 is one of the
elements of the processor (Br26).
The Examiner responds that the claim is still confusing
because the processor uses both elements to perform the same
function and it is unclear how the means cooperate to
provide key signals to the processor (EA11-12).
Although the language could be more precise, it does
not rise to the level of being indefinite. The functions
are not the same. The "input means operatively coupled to
the processor" (claim 24) is evidently the wire that conveys
the interleaved key signals and pressure signals to the
processor, whereas the "means receiving key signals"
(claim 28) only receives key signals (scancodes) after they
have been distinguished from the pressure signals in the
processor. Accordingly, there are not two input means to
- 35 -
Page: Previous 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007