Appeal No. 2004-1557
Application No. 09/451,942
Claims 7, 23 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Kirk in view of Bates.
Claims 8, 24 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Kirk in view of Isensee.
Claims 6, 9 through 18 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kirk in view of Mukherjee and
Manson.
Reference is made to the briefs (paper numbers 14 and 16)
and the answer (paper number 15) for the respective positions of
the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
Turning first to the lack of written description rejection,
the examiner states (answer, pages 4 and 5) that:
Specifically, support for the exclusionary statement
“wherein said each selectable point does not comprises
[sic, comprise] alphanumeric characters” which was
added into the claims by amendment is not found in the
original disclosure of the instant application. Any
negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have
basis in the original disclosure. See MPEP 2173.05(i).
As such, the limitation(s), supra, must be deleted from
the claims in response to this action.
Appellant argues (brief, page 6; reply brief, page 3) that
Figure 2A of the disclosure shows selectable points 44 as small
dots, and that the visible indicator 48 presents a display when
pointer 46 is moved over one of the selectable points 44.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007