Appeal No. 1999-0163
Application No. 08/745,698
automatic initiation or selective initiation by keystroke
combination. Under this interpretation, the Examiner suggests
that the sequence illustrated in the Hewlett-Packard reference
would meet the selective initiation operation.
We can find, however, no basis on the record for the
Examiner interpreting the claims in this manner. It is
apparent to us that the only reasonable interpretation of the
language of the claims before us requires the existence of two
language selection operating modes which are initiated
dependent on particular conditions. This is reflected in the
language of appealed claims 4 and 7 which specifically recite
that language selection is automatically started at initial
power-up and is selectively initiated by a particular
keystroke combination, a combination of features not taught or
suggested in Hewlett-Packard. It is also apparent from the
Examiner’s line of reasoning in the Answer that, since the
Examiner has mistakenly interpreted the disclosure of Hewlett-
Packard as disclosing an automatic language selection feature,
the issue of the obviousness of the inclusion of such a
feature has not been addressed.
Since all of the claim limitations are not taught or
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007