Appeal No. 96-0196
Application 08/158,337
cursor control in the device of Becker to enable display
updating [answer, page 6].
Appellant argues that Becker produces a real image
made up of a single row of pixels and does not teach the real
image of a complete frame of alphagraphics as recited in
independent claims 2 and 8 [brief, pages 7-8]. Appellant also
argues that nothing in Becker or Maeser suggests the use of a
manually controllable cursor mounted on a hand-held device for
controlling a cursor in the device [Id. pages 8-9]. We
basically agree with appellant that the prior art cited by the
examiner does not suggest the invention of independent claims
2 and 8 for reasons indicated by appellant.
At the outset we note that the examiner has not cited
a single piece of prior art which specifically suggests that
it was known to have manual cursor control means on hand-held
electronic devices. This is especially surprising when one
considers that the marketplace at the time this invention was
filed was inundated with hand-held computer games which
typically had a full page virtual display and a manually
controlled cursor. In our view any of these hand-held games
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007