Appeal No. 97-2886
Application 08/441,493
appellant’s own disclosure and not from any fair teaching or
suggestion found in the applied prior art itself.
In this regard, we consider that the examiner has used
appellant’s own disclosure and the claimed invention itself as a
blueprint for piecing together elements in the prior art so as to
defeat patentability of the apparatus defined in appellant’s
claim 12. Moving a mouse indicator arrow to an icon and clicking
on the icon to highlight the selected icon prior to activation
thereof, as suggested by the examiner, is far different than the
operation of the indicator means disclosed by appellant and as
required in claim 12 on appeal. The indicator means of claim 12
is provided for directing the attention of players and viewers of
an anagram game to “a selected one of said unsolved areas” before
a player guesses the solution of the anagram in said unsolved
area. By contrast, the highlighting feature alluded to by the
examiner where an icon is highlighted by a user, is the result of
the user already being focussed on a particular icon of interest
and then moving the mouse arrow to the desired icon which is
thereafter highlighted by the user so that it can be subsequently
activated by the user.
12
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007