Appeal 2007-1841
Application 10/144,916
substantially broader than those presented in independent claims 1 and 11 on
appeal.
Lastly, we treat the rejection of claims 1 through 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being obvious over Siedlikowski in view Will. Consistent with
Appellant’s arguments presented as to this rejection of independent claim 1,
11, and 21 on appeal beginning at page 13 of the principal Brief on appeal,
Appellant’s basic characterization of the impropriety of the Examiner’s
rejection is simply stated at page 11 of the Reply Brief indicating that the
dispute between the Examiner and the Appellant is whether a thumbwheel
can reasonable be considered as an alphanumeric key as claimed.
Both Siedlikowski and Will relate to PDA devices and cell phones.
Siedlikowski’s figure 1 shows thumbwheel 140 and navigate buttons 150 for
permitting scrolling up and scrolling down operations as well as the
keyboard 130. As to these keys, we make note of and agree with the
Examiner’s discussion of keys at page 35 of the responsive arguments
portion of the Answer, where the buttons of Siedlikowski plainly relate to
the keys of the claims. The Reply Brief does not rebut the Examiner’s views
expressed here. In the context of both Siedlikowski’s and Will’s devices
being considered as telephones, it is well known that any key related to
numeric entry also includes alphabetic information, thus having a dual
purpose. The discussion of the thumbwheel 140 in figure 1 of Siedlikowski
is noted at column 3, lines 10 through 25. Column 4, lines 55 through 65 of
Siedlikowski makes references to short cut key entries, such as those relating
to the “@” symbol which is well known to be a part of a numeric key, the
number 2.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013