Appeal 2007-2519
Application 10/616,208
THE REFERENCES
Feyereisen US 2003/0132860 A1 Jul. 17, 2003
Amro US 6,909,439 B1 Jun. 21, 2005
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the teachings of Feyereisen in view of Amro.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Brief and the Answer for the respective details thereof.
ISSUE
We find the following issue to be dispositive with respect to all claims
on appeal:
Whether Feyereisen or Amro teaches the recited limitation of
“reducing the enlarged image of the data setting on the display from the
predeterminately enlarged size to the predetermined size when said sensed
manipulating of the control is determined to have ceased.” (claim 1,
emphasis added; see also the equivalent language recited in independent
claim 10).
Although we need not reach the issue of hindsight to decide this
appeal, we nevertheless agree with Appellant that the Examiner has
impermissibly relied upon hindsight in formulating the rejection (see
analysis infra).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013