Appeal 2007-1841
Application 10/144,916
As to Will, the thumbwheel 15 in figure 2 corresponds to the
thumbwheel 140 in figure 1 of Siedlikowski. The showings in various
portions of figures 7 and 8 of Will make clear that a thumbwheel may be
considered to be a device for alphanumeric key entry information. As noted
by the Examiner in the reasoning in the Answer, the discussion at column 2,
lines 31 through 37 argues for the combinability with the teachings and
showings in Siedlikowski to provide a simple and effective control that can
effectively input small amounts of alphanumeric data. Moreover, the
teachings at column 13, lines 38 through 51 relate to future cell phone and
PDA embodiments that are contemplated. Finally, we generally agree with
the Examiner’s basic positions set forth at pages 36 and 37 relating to
Appellant’s other arguments presented in the Brief as to this rejection.
Lastly, as to Appellant’s arguments at page 14 of the principal Brief
relating to claim 3 and the corresponding argument at pages 15 and 16 of the
principal Brief relating to the arguments of dependent claim 13, Appellant
admits that both references to Siedlikowski and Will have message
composure routines within them. Again, as indicated earlier in this opinion,
the measure of immediacy in entering a message composure routine is not
recited in these claims.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner rejecting
various claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 is affirmed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013