Appeal 2007-1231
Application 10/186,922
1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1946 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475,
1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner contends that Payne meets the claimed invention
because the jumpers taught by Payne correspond to the shorts to be sensed
during the keypad matrix scan (Finding No. 14). In Payne, however, the
Read Keypad routine takes place during normal operation of the appliance
(Finding No. 7), and does not signal to the controller the presence or absence
of any shorts sensed, nor establish a set of pre-stored operational firmware to
be executed by the controller based on the shorts signaled in the keypad
matrix (Finding No. 8).
Therefore, adopting the Examiner’s reading of the selector switch of
Payne onto the claimed “keypad matrix,” we cannot find in Payne any
teaching or suggestion of “signaling shorts sensed during the keypad matrix
scan to the controller,” nor of “establishing a set of pre-stored operational
firmware … to be executed by the controller of the domestic appliance based
on the shorts signaled in the keypad matrix,” as required by claim 1.
Similarly, Payne does not teach or suggest “signaling a presence or absence
of shorts during the keypad matrix scan to the controller,” as required by
claim 6, or “means for performing a scan of and signaling shorts in the
keypad matrix,” as required by claim 10.
The Examiner appears to suggest (Answer 10: 14-21) that one may
read the wiring harness connector of Payne (Figs. 2-5, any of C1a-C1d, to
which the aforementioned jumpers are connected) as corresponding to the
claimed “keypad matrix.” To interpret Payne in this way, however, would
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013