Appeal No. 2005-0709
Application No. 09/767,197
device may be a wireless mobile telephone. Thus, the examiner
relies on Kushler for a teaching of a touch sensitive keypad on a
cellular telephone, and concludes that it would have been obvious
to combine the teachings of Smith and Kushler to provide for
Smith’s disclosed method of entering data and commands on a
wireless mobile phone keypad.
Appellants argue that the examiner has not pointed to any
suggestion in the cited references related to the desirability of
the combination of the cited references (see page 5 of the
principal brief). We disagree and find that in view of Smith’s
disclosure of entering data/commands into a keypad, and Smith’s
further disclosure of such keypads to be “telephone keypads”
(column 1, line 29), and that “a variety of apparatus can be used
to provide the eight key keypad including. . . a touch-tone
telephone” (column 4, lines 15-18), taken together with Kushler’s
disclosure of a touch sensitive keypad on a cellular telephone,
the skilled artisan clearly would have been led to apply Smith’s
data/command entry method to the keypad of a wireless mobile
telephone. Thus, we find appellants’ argument regarding no
suggestion to combine the references to be unconvincing.
On the other hand, we do find convincing of nonobviousness,
appellants’ arguments regarding the “key stroking patterns” of
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007