Appeal 2006-2961
Application 09/745,390
alternative embodiment4 hardly forecloses combining Little as indicated by
the Examiner.
For the foregoing reasons, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
representative claim 15 and claims 5, 6, 11, 12, 14, 17, 19, and 20 which fall
with claim 15.
DECISION
We have sustained the Examiner's rejections with respect to all claims
on appeal. Therefore, the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-
15, 17, 19, and 20 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED
KIS
HARRINGTON & SMITH, L.L.P.
4 RESEARCH DRIVE
SHELTON, CT 06484-6212
4 We note in passing that Halperin’s passively-powered keyboard
embodiment utilizes RFID tags also fully meets a “self-powered”
information entry part as claimed (Halperin, col. 3, l. 25 – col. 4, l. 12; Fig.
2). In that embodiment, a portion of the power of the incident wave is stored
by the tag’s capacitor thus activating the tag (Halperin, col. 3, ll. 34-38).
Thus, when the capacitor is charged, the keyboard is effectively “self-
powered” notwithstanding the lack of internal power sources.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Last modified: September 9, 2013