Appeal No. 2005-0709
Application No. 09/767,197
represented by first pressing key 7 and then pressing key 9,
these keys are clearly not adjacent each other, as required by
the definition in the instant claims. However, in Smith’s
example of representing the letter V by first pressing key 1 and
then pressing key 2, these keys are clearly adjacent each other,
but we fail to see how pressing key 1 and then lifting one’s
finger to press key 2 amounts to a “stroke pattern direction”
because there is no continuous movement.
While the instant claims do not specifically require a
“continuous” movement, it is clear from the instant specification
that “stroking” requires a “gliding pattern” (page 5, line 4) and
whether one calls it a continuous movement, or a gliding pattern,
it is clear that the pressing of one key, lifting the finger and
discontinuously pressing another key is not a “stroking” and does
not comprise a “stroking pattern direction,” as those terms are
used in the instant claims.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1-
3, 5-24, 26-42, and 46 under 35 U.S.C.§ 103.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007