Appeal No. 1997-1632 Page 22
Application No. 08/138,555
Because Rode appears to program one key at a time, col. 4, ll. 26-29, the
examiner fails to show that distinguishing signals intended for one key from signals
intended for other keys would have been desirable. Contributing to the failure is the
examiner’s explaining the teachings of “Rolands,” (Paper No. 46 at 17), rather than
Rode. (Id. at 17-18.) Therefore, we reverse the obviousness rejection of claim 83.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the rejection of claims 45, 46, 48, 50-53, 55-60, 68-70, and 73-80
under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1
and 2 of Larson alone; the rejection of claims 45, 46, 48, 50-53, 55-60, 68-70, and 73-
79 under the doctrine over claims 1 and 2 of Larson in view of Tolson; the rejection of
claim 54 under the doctrine as unpatentable over claim 1 of Henderson; and the
rejections of claims 45-60, 62-79, and 81-83 under § 103(a) are reversed.
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007