Appeal No. 2005-2526
Application No. 09/754,553
Appellants argue that Zellweger teaches only the movement of
text to allow text interlineations and it does not teach a data
entry area and a keyboard image, therefore failing to teach the
movement of a data entry area to accommodate a keyboard image.
Moreover, argue appellants, Zellweger provides no rationale from
within the reference itself to modify Vale.
Furthermore, appellants argue that the “data entry area” 68 in
Vale (and appellants questions whether this may be considered a
“data entry area”) is a distinct entered data area which is
separate and distinct from the keyboard image 66; therefore there
would have been no reason to provide for movement of a data entry
area on an interface to display a keyboard image.
Claim 1 calls for merely two steps. The first step,
“displaying a keyboard image on a user interface,” is clearly
taught by Vale in Figure 7 and the attendant text. The examiner
agrees that Vale does not teach the second claimed step, “moving a
data entry area on said interface to display said keyboard image.”
Accordingly, the outcome will depend on whether Zellweger
teaches this claimed second step, as alleged by the examiner, and,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007