Appeal No. 2004-0468
Application 09/754,555
contact with a touch screen cannot map always to a single mouse
equivalent command that generates a mouse click event.” The
Examiner rebuts this at page 7 of the answer by pointing out
that, “this statement was not claimed.” We have reviewed the
language of claim 1 and we agree with the Examiner. There is
nothing in claim 1 that requires the cessation “always map to a
single mouse equivalent command.” Although, we do find that in
each mode of Tannenbaum, the cessation does map to a single mouse
equivalent command. See Tannenbaum at column 13, lines 14-20.
Appellants also argue, “Tannenbaum merely shows a mouse
double click generated upon lift-off, the mouse double click is
determined by the selected mode rather than solely in response to
the detection of the cessation of contact, as claimed in claim
1.” We have reviewed the language of claim 1 and again we agree
with the Examiner. There is nothing in claim 1 that requires the
determination is “solely in response to the detection of the
cessation of contact.” Further, we point out that we find all
the limitations of claim 1 are present in Tannenbaum. In
addition to the “detecting and generating” pointed out by the
Examiner, Tannenbaum teaches the “receiving and converting” steps
of claim 1 at column 12, lines 67, through column 13, line 6.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007