Appeal 2007-1841
Application 10/144,916
detecting activation of an alphanumeric key from a set of keys;
comparing a status of the messaging device to a predetermined status
to provide a comparison;
when said comparison is unfavorable and responsive to said
activation, presenting a first interface procedure for the messaging device;
and
when said comparison is favorable and responsive to said activation,
presenting a second interface procedure for the messaging device, said
second interface procedure foregoing one or more key activations
corresponding to said first interface procedure.
The following references are relied on by the Examiner:
Will US 5,825,353 Oct. 20, 1998
Palatsi US 5,892,475 Apr. 6, 1999
Siedlikowski US 6,741,232 B1 May 25, 2004
(Filed January 23, 2002)
Claims 1 through 4, 6, 7, 11 through 14, 16, 17, and 21 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Palatsi. This reference is
used to reject claims 5, 8 through 10, 15, and 18 through 20, as being
obvious over Palatsi alone. Lastly, claims 1 through 21 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Siedlikowski in view of Will.
Rather than repeat the positions of the Appellant and the Examiner,
reference is made to the principal Brief and Reply Brief for Appellant’s
positions, and to the Answer for the Examiner’s positions.
OPINION
For the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer, as amplified
here, we sustain each of the rejections of the argued claims on appeal.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013