Appeal No. 95-3744
Application 08/084,838
not provide the fundamental teaching of panning or scrolling in the same composite direction that
an object is moved.
The examiner also contends that a scroll in one direction followed by a scroll in another
direction results in the scrolling in a composite direction with respect to the initial location. While
this is true, it is not relevant to the claimed invention. The admitted prior art has always been able
to achieve a resultant scroll in any direction by performing a horizontal scroll followed by a
vertical scroll or vice versa. As noted above, however, claim 1 requires that the scroll itself occur
in the composite direction, and not simply result in a data movement in the composite direction.
The examiner’s finding of facts regarding the teachings of Yanker simply are not supported by the
Yanker disclosure.
The whole point of appellant’s invention is to permit the scroll to occur in a composite
direction, not simply to end up in a composite direction from the initial point. Although claim 1
does not specifically recite that the scroll occurs in two orthogonal directions simultaneously, the
language of claim 1 implicitly makes this requirement. The scroll can only occur in the same
composite direction as the object is moved if it tracks the directional movement of the object.
This can only occur if the scroll takes place in both orthogonal directions at the same time.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007