Appeal 2007-1231
Application 10/186,922
a controller, linked to the control panel, for establishing the one of the
plurality of desired operating cycles, said controller being configured to
operate with a plurality of distinct user interfaces; and
means for performing a scan of and signaling shorts in the keypad
matrix in order to automatically identify the predetermined user interface of
the control panel.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Payne US 5,412,291 May 2, 1995
The rejections as presented by the Examiner are as follows:
Group I: Claims 1-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Payne.
Group II: Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Payne.
Appellant contends that the claimed subject matter is not anticipated
by Payne, or rendered obvious by Payne alone, in that Payne does not teach
scanning a keypad matrix and signaling shorts sensed during that scan, in an
effort to identify the particular user interface attached to a universal
controller for an appliance. The Examiner contends that each of the two
groups of claims is properly rejected.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Briefs and the Answer for their respective details.
Only those arguments actually made by Appellant have been considered in
this decision. Arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013