Appeal No. 95-4629
Application 07/831,953
slightly moved or moved in its entirety. Still, an image may
never need to be repositioned because it may never protrude
from the display screen at all as an alternative condition to
the normal usage of appellant's prior art Figures 1 to 4. In
such a case, there would be no operative condition to correct
anything, which again is within the ambit of the subject
matter of the claims on appeal.
We further observe in passing that claims 2 to 4 and 6 to
8 are respectively identical, are not argued in the briefs and
read on appellant’s prior art Figures 1 to 4 and their
corresponding specification discussion.
We believe that the examiner has provided evidence of
reasonable equivalent means performing the claimed functions,
to the extent broadly recited. The examiner’s and our own
analysis of the prior art relied upon by the examiner add
further understanding of this and the wide scope of the
claims.
Our own analysis provided more insight of the disclosed
and claimed invention than do appellant’s brief and reply
brief. The dissent would require appellant to read the claim-
14
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007