Appeal No. 2004-0508
Application No. 09/464,557
(column 2, lines 34-37) of enhancing the depth perception of a
cursor by varying the cursor’s “color, size, transparency, and/or
pattern,” we find no indication from the Examiner as to how the
varying of any of these cursor characteristics would satisfy the
claimed limitation which specifies a reflectivity characteristic.
The Examiner must not only make requisite findings, based on the
evidence of record, but must also explain the reasoning by which
the findings are deemed to support the asserted conclusion. See
In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1343, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1433-34 (Fed.
Cir. 2002).
In summary, since all of the claim limitations are not
taught or suggested by the applied prior art, it is our opinion
that the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to the claims on appeal. Accordingly,
we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007