Appeal No. 95-4809
Application 08/104,251
answer. We disagree with the Examiner's conclusion with respect to the combined
teachings of Matthews and Becker. Assuming arguendo that the references are properly
combined, we do not find that the combination of the two teachings would have fairly
suggested the invention as claimed.
We disagree with the Examiner's characterization that Becker suggests controlling
the resolution in response to movement along one axis and controlling range in response
to movement along a second axis. Becker clearly discloses that the plural sliders are
operated by use of the mouse in a "conventional manner" to select discrete input values by
placement of the cursor on the slider and actuation of the mouse buttons. (See col. 2.)
Clearly, this teaching does not teach nor fairly suggest to skilled artisans that the values
are responsive to movement of the cursor device as the Examiner suggests. Rather, the
input is responsive to the position/location at the time of actuation of the mouse button.
We conclude that at most the combination of teachings would have suggested to skilled
artisans to have a second specialized input device as Matthews teaches having two
dimensional control of resolution and range.
Appellant has argued that there is no suggestion to modify the existing control for
the dual purpose. (See brief at pages 23, 24 and 27.) We agree. The Examiner has not
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007