Appeal 2007-1231
Application 10/186,922
make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2004).2
ISSUE
The issue in the appeal before us is whether Payne teaches scanning a
keypad matrix for an appliance, signaling the presence of shorts during the
scan to a controller, and identifying the appliance’s user interface based on
the signals received during the keypad matrix scan.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Appellant invented a system and method for identifying which
version of a user interface is attached to an appliance controller
(Specification 3: 1-3).
2. The controller executes a scan of the interface’s keypad matrix
upon initial power-up (Specification 3: 11-12).
3. The presence or absence of a shorted keypad key functions to signal
to the controller the identity of the particular user interface employed
(Specification 3: 12-14).
4. Payne teaches an appliance control system with automatic model
determination (col. 10, l. 41 to col. 11, l. 48).
2 Appellant has not presented any substantive arguments directed separately
to the patentability of the dependent claims or related claims in each group,
except as will be noted in this opinion. In the absence of a separate
argument with respect to those claims, they stand or fall with the
representative independent claim. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18
USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013