Appeal 2007-1231
Application 10/186,922
be inconsistent with the meaning of “keypad” in the prior art3, i.e. a small
set of keys (buttons to be pressed to indicate a selection) connected to a
computer, terminal, or similar device. As noted in Finding No. 15, Payne
contains no teaching of any keys or other elements a user might manipulate
to select an option or enter data. As a result, we decline to equate the wiring
harness connector of Payne with the “keypad matrix” recited in the claims.
Because Payne does not teach signaling a presence or absence of
shorts sensed during the keypad matrix (claims 1, 6, and 10), establishing
firmware to be executed by the appliance’s controller based on the shorts
signaled in the keypad matrix (claim 1), or means for signaling shorts in the
keypad matrix (claim 10) in order to automatically identify the
predetermined user interface of the control panel (claims 6 and 10), we agree
with Appellant that the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of
anticipation for independent claims 1, 6, and 10, or for claims 2-5, 7-9, and
11-14 dependent therefrom.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-14. The rejection of those claims is
reversed.
3 Appellant does not define “keypad” in his Specification.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013