Ex parte VENOLIA - Page 2




              Appeal No. 95-4809                                                                                       
              Application 08/104,251                                                                                   


                                                   BACKGROUND                                                          

                     The present invention relates to a method of accessing a data field for use in a                  
              computer system.  A cursor is used for dual purposes of computer cursor control and                      
              access control to a data field displayed by the computer system.  The computer remaps                    
              the cursor control to control access to the data within the field.  After remapping, the input           
              device controls both the resolution and range of the data field displayed.  Movements of                 
              the input device in a plane along one axis control the resolution, and movements in the                  
              other axis control the range of the data field for the display in response to the movement.              
              The combined movements within the two axes simultaneously control resolution and range                   
              to access the data.                                                                                      
                     Appellant has indicated that claims 1, 5-7, 12, 13 and 15 stand or fall together, but             
                     2                                                   3                                         
              claim 8  stands or falls together with claims 10 and 11.   (Brief  at page 18.)                          
                     Independent claim 1 is representative of the invention and reproduced as follows:                 



                     1.  In a computer system, a method for accessing a data field comprising the steps                
                     of:                                                                                               


                     Appellant has indicated that claim 8 stands alone and is grouped separately, but we have2                                                                                                
              included claims 10 and 11 within the group due to their dependency on claim 8.                           
                     3 Appellant filed a substitute appeal brief, October 13, 1998, (Paper No. 18) to replace the non- 
              compliant appeal brief filed April 24, 1995, (Paper No. 14).  We will refer to this substitute appeal brief as
              simply the brief.                                                                                        
                                                          2                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007