Ex Parte Salandro

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 28, 2001

08317990 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 28, 2001)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was
not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the
Board.
Paper No. 18
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte JERRY R. SALANDRO
__________
Appeal No. 1998-0148
Application 08/317,990
___________
ON BRIEF
___________
Before HAIRSTON, FLEMING and HECKER, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HECKER, Administrative Patent Judge.
Appellant’s request for rehearing is granted to the extent that
we have in fact reviewed our findings but is denied as to making
any change therein.
REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appellant requests that we reconsider and modify our
decision mailed July 10, 2000, to indicate that the rejection
of claims 1 through 4 is reversed.
Appellant argues “The heart of the Board’s rejection of
Claim 1 is that ‘[t]he connections of matrix 13 are clearly
Appeal No. 1998-0148
Application 08/317,990

2
displayed in Figure 7 [of Simpson] as a graphical (or pictorial)
representation.’”
First, we have not made this rejection, we have sustained
the Examiner’s rejection.
Second, we remain unpersuaded by Applicant’s arguments.
Appellant’s contention (page 3) that Simpson’s Figure 7
represents the matrix after a selection has been made is
irrelevant. The language of claim 1 requires no such
distinction. Appellant would have us read claim 1 on Simpson’s
Figure 4. Figure 4 also displays a representation of the matrix
of cross-point switches. In Figure 4, however, the lack of
connection paths represents that no switches have been closed.
Our decision discusses the details of connection paths only to
explain how the language of Appellant’s claim 5 is not met.
Appellant states “Since the switches themselves are
represented in the structure of Claim 1, only one
input is required,...” (page 5).
Again we note that a broad interpretation of claim 1 reads
on Simpson. Neither Appellant nor Simpson display the actual
components of a matrix of cross-point switches. Each display a
representation of such. Appellant’s claim 1 recites “input
Appeal No. 1998-0148
Application 08/317,990

3
means”. We find no requirement to limit this to one input or a
single input, or a single instruction for an input means.
Appellant’s input means is disclosed as a keyboard, mouse or
touch screen. Simpson clearly teaches these devices.
In view of the foregoing, Appellant's request for rehearing
is denied as to making any change in our decision.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
DENIED
)
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
STUART N. HECKER )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 1998-0148
Application 08/317,990

4
RICHARD V. WESTERHOFF
ECKERT, SEAMANS, CHERIN & MELLOTT
42ND FLOOR
600 GRANT STREET
PITTSBURGH, PA 15219
SNH:caw