Appeal No. 1998-2864
Application No. 08/338,235
examiner refers to Paper No. 6 for the rejection of claims 1, 2,
4, 6-8, 14, 15 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 but does not refer to
this Paper for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112. The examiner
also does not repeat the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 in either
of the answers. Moreover, the problem regarding the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. 112 involved the elimination of “a” in “a
parameter” rather than in “a keypad.” In light of this, and in
light of the fact that the appendix to the principal brief shows
the correction to the claims which would have overcome any such
rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 and the examiner, in the principal
answer, indicates that this is a correct copy of the claims on
appeal, we will understand the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 to
have been withdrawn and that claims 3, 5, 9-13, 18 and 20, being
directed to allowable subject matter, are no longer on appeal
before us.
Accordingly, we limit our opinion herein to the rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 14, 16, 17 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over
Kobayashi and to the rejection of claims 6 and 15 under 35 U.S.C.
103 over Kobayashi in view of Crane (Paper No. 6, pages 5-6)
We are somewhat confused as to the listing by the examiner,
in the principal answer, page 4, of the Lemelson, Breit, Bomar,
Tin, Freedman and Freeman patent references since none of these
-4–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007