Appeal No. 1998-3127
Application No. 08/703,418
result in the invention as set forth in independent claim 1
(Brief, page 7). After careful review of the applied prior
art in light of the arguments of record, we are in agreement
with Appellant’s position as stated in the Briefs.
Our review of Leeder finds that, contrary to the
Examiner’s interpretation, while a message is provided on the
programmable keys that changes according to the programmed key
function, there is no suggestion that such message is related
to the function performed by the keys. The Examiner at least
impliedly recognizes this shortcoming of Leeder since the
stated rationale for modifying Nishimura with Leeder rests
solely on a desire to provide a user with a feedback
indication that a desired key function has been initiated. In
our view, however, the resulting modification of Nishimura
with Leeder would at best provide an indication to a user that
a particular switch button has been pressed, but there would
be no indication that a particular station selected by
depression of the switch button would be identified as
required by claim 1.
As to the Examiner’s assertion (Answer, page 7) that,
since the disclosed programmable key of Leeder can have any
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007