Appeal No. 2004-1307
Application No. 09/843,724
would be a convenience to the user as a typing aid. Thus, the
record indicates that the examiner combined the references using
the appellants’ disclosure as a template, which is improper. See
Fritch, 972 F.2d at 1266, 23 USPQ2d at 1784. Accordingly, we
reverse the rejection of claim 1 and claims 3, 6 and 14 that
depend directly or indirectly therefrom.
Claim 7
Hutchison discloses a keyboard comprising 1) a number pad
that includes a NumLock key and digit keys, the digit keys having
a secondary mode, and 2) a key cluster, directly behind the
number pad, that includes another NumLock key (figure 1).
The examiner argues that in view of Hutchison’s disclosure
of keys in the number pad having a secondary mode, it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in
the number pad a secondary mode NumLock key since it has been
held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine
skill in the art (answer, pages 7 and 22).
The examiner has not explained how the modification proposed
by the examiner would be a mere rearrangement of parts.
Regardless, the examiner is relying upon a per se rule that
rearranging parts would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art. As stated by the Federal Circuit in In re
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007