Appeal No. 95-4809
Application 08/104,251
provided a teaching nor motivation as to why it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention to "remap" the conventional cursor control device
to control the resolution and range "continuously" in response to "movement" along two
axes of motion thereby providing dual functions or states of the single cursor control
device.
With respect to claim 12, we note that this claim contains the additional limitation
that the movements within the two axes "simultaneously vary said resolution and said
range of display, until the particular piece of data is accessed." The Examiner has
acknowledged the prior art does not teach the limitation, but the Examiner does not
provide a line of reasoning as to why the applied references would have fairly suggested
simultaneously varying resolution and range in response to movement. (See answer at
page 4.)
Rejections based on § 103 must rest on a factual basis with these facts being
interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of the invention from the prior art. The
examiner may not, because of doubt that the invention is patentable, resort to speculation,
unfounded assumption or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in
the factual basis for the rejection. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ
173, 178 (CCPA 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968). Our reviewing court has
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007