Appeal No. 2005-1785
Application No. 10/164,853
lines 1-10; figure 2). “[W]hen first connector 100 is in contact
with second connector 110, activation of control and illumination
is provided to first user interface 30. However, when first
connector 100 is not in contact with second connector 110,
activation of control and illumination is provided to second user
interface 40” (page 6, lines 7-10). The originally filed
specification describes moving the connectors into or out of
contact with each other by rotating user interfaces 30 and 40
about hinge 20 toward or away from each other (page 5, line 23 -
page 6, line 2). Hence, the originally filed specification would
have reasonably conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art that
as of the filing date of the application, the appellants were in
possession of activating a user interface by relative movement of
first and second user interfaces.
The examiner argues that “such activation of only an active
user interface does not specify illumination of a first interface
and not a second interface” (answer, page 4).
The appellants’ originally filed specification discloses
that “[t]he microprocessor is configured to activate either first
user interface 30 or second user interface 40, depending on which
user interface 10 is currently addressable to a user” (page 4,
lines 21-23), and that “[a]ctivation of any user interface 10
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007