Appeal No. 2005-1948 3
Application No. 10/020,572
(brief, page 4) that “Hoeksma neither teaches nor suggests first and second types of
actuation of the same key . . .” (Emphasis added). Although Hoeksma must actuate key
223 twice to select the letter “O”, the same type of key actuation is executed twice to
make the character selection. Stated differently, Hoeksma presses the key 223 twice in
the same manner and does not use first and second types of actuations of the same
key as set forth in the claims on appeal. For this reason, the anticipation rejection of
claims 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, 20, 23, 24, 26 and 27 is reversed.
Turning to the obviousness rejection of claims 9 through 29, the user of the touch
screen keypad in Hirshberg makes initial contact with a displayed soft key (e.g., key
ABC2) (Figure 1), slides the finger to one of the characters or the number 2, and then
tilts the key in the direction of the desired character or number (Abstract; column 4, lines
51 through 64; column 5, lines 31 through 40). Although the letters ABC and the
number 2 are continuously displayed on the soft key, the examiner is of the opinion that
the skilled artisan would have turned to the display teachings of King for a teaching of a
display in response to a key actuation. Inasmuch as Hirshberg already continuously
displays the key characters and number, we must agree with the appellant’s argument
(brief, page 6) that “the only real motivation of record [to combine the teachings of the
references] is found in Appellant’s own Specification.” In summary, the obviousness
rejection of claims 9 through 29 is reversed because a prima facie case of obviousness
can not be established with impermissible hindsight.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007