Appeal No. 1999-2591
Application No. 08/628,995
rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 because claim 13 not
only claims the switches but also recites the scrolling of one
switch responsive to a vertical mouse movement and the scrolling
of the other switch responsive to a horizontal mouse movement, as
in claim 6, supra. We find nothing in either one of Barker or
Windows, or the combination thereof, that would, in any way,
shape or form, suggest this limitation.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 7-
18 under 35 U.S.C. 103. While the rejection of claims 16-18 also
relies on the Mandt reference, this reference was only used for a
teaching of an oscilloscope displaying a full waveform and a
selected part of the waveform and does not provide for the
deficiencies of Barker and/or Windows.
Finally, we turn to the independent claims 19, 20 and 21.
The examiner explains that the rejection of these claims is
as applied to claims 5-13. The only differences we see between
these claims and claim 1, for example, is in the recitation of
the second indicium having a “predetermined area;” the recitation
of the processor “executing a computer routine” and the
controlling of “a condition” of the second indicium. These
claims recite nothing about the switches. For reasons similar to
our holding of anticipation of claim 1 over Barker, supra, we
11–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007