Appeal No. 1999-2591
Application No. 08/628,995
We will not sustain the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C.
103 because this claim depends from claim 4, requiring the
“switch” discussed supra. Windows does not provide for the
deficiency of Barker in this regard, in addition to our doubt
that Windows even discloses the “continuous loop” required by
claim 5.
With regard to claim 61, this claim even further limits the
claimed subject matter to the processor being responsive to
“substantially vertical movements of the mouse...for scrolling
through the list of character groups assigned to one of the
switches” and responsive to “substantially horizontal movements
of the mouse...for scrolling through the list of character groups
assigned to the other switch.” Besides a lack of teaching by
either of Barker or Windows of the claimed “switches,” there is
clearly no suggestion in either of the references of the claimed
vertical and horizontal movements of the mouse to control one or
the other of the switches. This refers to Figure 5 of the
instant application where movement in one direction controls
scrolling of the integral number switch and movement in the other
1Although appellants refer to this claim, at page 17 of the
principal brief, as depending from claim 5, claim 6 actually
depends from claim 2.
8–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007