Appeal No. 95-3744
Application 08/084,838
had an opportunity to present a position with respect to Paal. Thus, we simply note that Paal is
the closest prior art, and the record in this case should reflect how Paal affects the patentability of
the pending claims.
In order to assist the examiner and appellants should prosecution of this invention be
resumed, we offer the following comments on the teachings of the other prior art applied by the
examiner. It would not have been obvious to combine Steele with Yanker for the purpose of
returning the cursor in Yanker to its home position. The Steele teachings which relate to
returning an icon after slight movement would not have suggested its use in a movement of the
type claimed here or desired in Yanker. Meier would have rendered obvious the broad recitation
of stopping scrolling by releasing an object. Yanker would have rendered obvious the broad
recitation of scrolling data at a rate determined by the distance of an object from a home position.
Windows would not have suggested the toggling of scroll bars as the toggling is recited in claims
7 and 16. Apple would have rendered obvious the broad recitation of moving scroll buttons along
scroll bars as the data within a window is scrolled.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007