Appeal No. 96-0196
Application 08/158,337
Appellant points to several portions of the
specification and argues that the person skilled in this art
would have understood that the invention included a
continuously alterable control signal as recited in claim 5
[brief, pages 6-7]. We agree with appellant. The examiner’s
position seems to suggest that appellant is limited to the
generic description of cursor movement since neither
continuous movement nor discrete movement is specifically
identified. The person skilled in this art, however, would
have recognized that the invention included any type of
conventional cursor movement which could be effected by a
touch pad. Since continuously alterable cursor control
signals were a standard form of cursor control, we conclude
that appellant’s specification supports the language of claim
5 and is, therefore, in compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112.
We now consider the various rejections of the
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In rejecting claims under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103, it is incumbent upon the examiner to establish a
factual basis to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007