Appeal No. 1998-2866
Application No. 08/548,441
Each of appellants’ independent keyboard claims 1 and 9
require, inter alia, the broadly recited feature of “optically
readable data” corresponding to characters printed on a panel,
while appellants’ independent method claims respectively broadly
mandate, inter alia, “optically readable data” corresponding to a
visual representation of a character on a panel (claim 5) and
characters on a first side of a panel and “optically readable
data” on a second side of the panel (claim 13).
The examiner recognizes that the patent to Johnson addresses
magnetically readable data and not optically readable data
(answer, page 4). However, based upon the examiner’s recognition
that other types of readable data arrangements are known, the
conclusion is reached to the effect that it would have been
obvious to substitute any type of readable data arrangement,
e.g., an optically readable data arrangement, for the
magnetically readable data arrangement of Johnson (answer, pages
4, 5, and 8).
At this point, it is well worthy of noting that a
determination of patentability must be based on evidence. Thus,
following the law of the Court of Appeals for the Federal
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007