Ex Parte BROOKS - Page 15




              Appeal No. 2002-2023                                                            Paper 31                      
              Application No. 08/689,526                                                      Page 15                       
                     "changing an orientation" or even just the word "orientation" are not in                               
                     the specification but were at least in the original claims.  A standard                                
                     dictionary defines "ORIENTATION: noun, One's place and direction                                       
                     relative to one's surroundings: bearing (often used in plural), location,                              
                     position, situation."  In any case the combination of Kanamaru et al. and                              
                     McCambridge clearly read on "changing an orientation".  [Answer, p. 10, ¶                              
                     3 - p. 11, ¶ 1, original emphasis.]                                                                    
                     What is clear is that the examiner understood appellant's argument against                             
              modifying Kanamaru with McCambridge.  What is not clear is the examiner's rebuttal to                         
              appellant's argument.  The examiner has not rejected any of the appealed claims under                         
              35 U.S.C. § 112, first and/or second paragraphs.  In other words, the examiner evidently                      
              finds that the appealed claims are not only clear and definite, but also supported by an                      
              adequate written description of how to make and use appellant's invention throughout                          
              its claimed scope.  Moreover, the claim limitation to be addressed is not just "changing                      
              an orientation", but rather "changing an orientation of the pointer responsive to said                        
              compared pointer movement line with said barrier".  Assuming arguendo that                                    
              Kanamaru changed the speed of pointer movement in response to one trigger, i.e.,                              
              responsive to said compared pointer movement line (which requires at least two points                         
              of reference) with said barrier, the examiner has failed to explain why one of ordinary                       
              skill in the art would have used the cursor orientation of McCambridge which occurs in                        
              response to a different trigger, i.e., responsive to current location (which is a single point                
              of reference), to modify Kanamaru.  In other words, it is not simply a matter of what a                       
              change in orientation does to a pointer, e.g., whether the pointer is rotated in place or                     
              relocated from coordinate 1 to coordinate 2 on a display screen, but rather what triggers                     
              the change in orientation to occur.                                                                           






Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007