Appeal No. 1999-2591
Application No. 08/628,995
regard to claims 5-15 and 19-21, adding Mandt to the combination
with regard to claims 16-18.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
With regard to independent claim 1, the examiner contends
that Barker teaches a display control apparatus comprising a
display screen 4, a mouse having x-y motion sensor and control
buttons, referring to column 3, lines 35-68. The examiner also
contends that a processor in Barker would be “inherent” in the
control of the display and appellants do not dispute this.
The examiner defines the claimed “first operational mode” as
being Barker’s cursor moving anywhere on screen 2 in response to
movement of the mouse until the cursor is placed on “Describe” on
the command bar, for example. It is the examiner’s position that
once the cursor is placed on a “second indicium,” including
handle 14, scale 12 and value 18, and both the mouse cursor 16
and the handle 14 reach an end of scale 12, at this point, a
“second operation mode” begins. Thus, the vertical movement of
the mouse controls scrolling of scale 12, i.e., changing the
condition of the second indicium, but the mouse cursor 16 does
3–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007