Appeal No. 1999-2591
Application No. 08/628,995
to the sensed movement of the mouse until the extent of the ruler
is reached. As appellants describe [Principal brief-page 14], it
is only after that point, and in response to further mouse
movement in the same direction that scrolling will occur. So
far, this is in accordance with the language of claim 1 which
requires, in a second mode, that the processor be responsive to
any detected movement of the mouse in one direction while the
cursor is on a second indicium without affecting the location on
the screen or either the cursor or the second indicium.
The problem, and the nub of appellants’ argument, is that
claim 1 not only requires this operation in one direction, it
also requires the operation in an opposite direction, i.e., “in
either of two opposite directions.” It is appellants’ contention
that although Barker teaches downward scrolling and no movement
of the cursor when the extent of the ruler is reached, movement
of the mouse in the opposite direction, i.e., upwards, in Figure
4 of Barker, “will cause the pointer to move accordingly on the
screen without a scrolling functionality” [Principal brief-page
14].
We agree with the examiner. While we fully understand what
appellants are saying and we fully understand the differences
between the instant disclosed invention and what is disclosed by
5–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007