Appeal No. 95-1428
Application 08/031,036
the screen. The examiner has not explained how a mouse
"executing means" would be mounted to the screen in Field. In
the absence of such an explanation by the examiner, we are in
agreement with appellants' argument that "[n]either Field nor Oka
teaches a system including . . . an execution key, as recited in
independent claim 1" (Brief, page 15). The obviousness rejection
of independent claim 1, and the claims that depend therefrom, is
reversed.
The Rahman reference was cited by the examiner to show that
"[c]onverting an analog signal to a digital signal in an input
device is contentional [sic, conventional]" (Answer, page 4), and
the Bristow reference was cited by the examiner because it
"disclosed an animation display device comprising memory means
for storing basic character and various characters corresponding
to the basic character" (Answer, page 5). The teachings of these
references are duly noted, but they fail to cure the "executing
key" shortcoming in the teachings of Field and Oka. Thus, the
obviousness rejection of claims 9 and 12 is reversed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007