Appeal No. 96-1842
Application 08/193,356
by the examiner to be the claimed first point [id., pages 7-
8]. The examiner maintains that Table 9-1 in Kinata is always
maintained the same distance from the insertion point.
Appellant argues that Table 9-1 in Kinata would not follow
both horizontal and vertical movement of the insertion point
[brief, page 9]. The examiner responds that the claims do not
require movement of the second window in both the horizontal
and the vertical direction [answer, pages 8-9].
We agree with appellant that the examiner has
misconstrued both the scope of the claim and the teachings of
Kinata. As noted above, each of the independent claims
recites that both the horizontal and vertical distances are
maintained between the second window and the selected point on
the display. Kinata simply does not teach or suggest this
feature. Whether the selected point in Kinata is deemed to be
the “I-bar” or the insertion point as asserted by the
examiner, the second “window” of Kinata (Table 9-1) does not
move in horizontal and vertical step with the selected point.
While portions of Table 9-1 may move in response to movement
of the insertion point, the movement is not required to
maintain horizontal and vertical distances as recited in the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007