Appeal No. 1996-1385
Application No. 08/006,139
825 (1988); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories,
Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ 657, 664 (Fed. Cir. 1985),
cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986); ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v.
Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933
(Fed. Cir. 1984). These showings by the examiner are an
essential part of complying with the burden of presenting a
prima facie case of obviousness. Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
We consider first the rejection of claims 28, 30 and
31 as being unpatentable over the teachings of Straayer in
view of Edwards. These claims stand or fall together [brief,
page 5]. With respect to each of these claims, the examiner
notes that Straayer teaches a cursor positioning device in
which an operator’s force on a key switch means controls
cursor movement on a display screen. The examiner also
asserts that Straayer teaches controlling the speed of cursor
movement (that is, differing time response characteristics) in
correspondence to the operator actuation [supplemental answer,
page 4]. The examiner notes that Straayer does not teach
relating the speed characteristics to a repositioning
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007