Appeal No. 2005-0485
Application No. 09/303,632
closure strips 218 and 220 secured to Gaible’s sidewalls.1
Furthermore, the appellants have not cogently explained why
Gaible’s sidewalls do not have a predetermined size in length and
width to either contact and overlie an entire upper surface of a
computer keyboard as recited in claim 32 or protect an entire
upper and bottom surface of a keyboard as recited in claim 41 so
as to inhibit unintentional contact between the keyboard and
fingers of an operator while not impeding an operator’s ability
to manipulate the keyboard in a speedy and accurate manner.
Computer keyboards come in many shapes and sizes, and it is not
apparent why Gaible’s sidewalls would not be inherently capable
of meeting the foregoing size and use limitations in claims 32
and 41 with respect to the keyboard of a small hand-held
calculator/computer.2
Hence, the appellants’ position that the subject matter
recited in independent claims 32 and 41, and dependent claims 35
through 37 and 42, distinguishes over that disclosed by Gaible is
1
1 When a claim uses an “open” transition phrase, such as
“comprising,” its scope may cover devices that employ additional
unrecited elements. AFG Industries Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., 239
F.3d 1239, 1245, 57 USPQ2d 1776, 1780-81 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
2
2 A calculator is considered to be a particular type of
computer by those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Paulsen,
30 F.3d 1475, 1479, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007