Appeal No. 96-0196
Application 08/158,337
that disclosed by Becker. Such a modification is not
suggested by Becker, but comes only from the examiner’s effort
to meet the claimed invention in hindsight. Even though the
artisan could modify Becker in the manner suggested by the
examiner, such modification is not suggested by either Becker
or Maeser.
Maeser does not even rise to the level of suggesting
that manually controlled cursors were known in the art. The
examiner relies on Maeser to teach that generic computer input
devices were known and manually controlled cursor inputs were
inherently included within such known devices. Maeser
provides no teaching, however, with respect to placing such a
manually controlled cursor input on a hand-held electronic
device. Again, there is no specific suggestion in Maeser
which would have led the artisan to modify Becker in the
manner suggested by the examiner.
In summary, the rejection of independent claims 2 and
8 cannot be sustained based on the teachings of Becker and
Maeser. Although there is probably better prior art than that
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007