Appeal 2007-1841
Application 10/144,916
Independent claim 1 recites in part “said second interface procedure
foregoing one or more key activations corresponding to said first interface
procedure.” In contrast to this recitation, independent claim 11 merely
requires “foregoing activation of one or more keys.” The activation in this
claim does not necessarily have to correspond to the first procedure as in
claim 1 and appears to recite the requirement that any key, including keys
other than alphanumeric, may meet the limitation. Similar observations are
made with respect to independent claim 21. This claim also does not require
that the comparing step, the step relating to a situation when the comparison
in unfavorable and the step of when the comparison is favourable have any
stated relevance to the initially recited step of detecting activation of an
alphanumeric key.
Turning to the first stated rejection of independent claim 1 that is
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), Appellant’s arguments at pages 6 and 8
of the Brief indicating that the Examiner’s use of hindsight is improper is in
itself an improper argument to make within a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §
102 as the Examiner notes in the responsive arguments at page 30 of the
Answer. The argument is not pursued in the Reply Brief.
Page 3 of the Answer makes clear that the Examiner’s correlation of
comparing a status of the claims is based upon Palatsi’s comparison of a
period of time set into the device. As the abstract and the first paragraph of
the Summary of The Invention of Palatsi at column 1 appears to identically
indicate, his invention determines whether a period of time of a
predetermined duration has elapsed from first operation and another
operation. In a third paragraph in the summary of the invention beginning at
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013