Appeal No. 1996-1385
Application No. 08/006,139
movement based on the operator indicating a repositioning
operation or a dragging operation. The claimed invention
recites that the rate of cursor movement is adjusted based on
the type of operation. Edwards relates to the rate of
pointing device movement based on the type of operation.
There is no suggestion in the applied prior art that pointing
device movement for different operations should be reflected
in different time responsive cursor movements. Although
Straayer broadly indicates that speed of the cursor movement
can be varied, there is no suggestion that the variation
respond to a repositioning operation and a dragging operation
as claimed.
In summary, we agree with appellants that the
collective teachings of Straayer and Edwards do not suggest
the claimed invention within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 28, 30
and 31.
Dependent claim 29 has been rejected on prior art
using the additional teachings of Moore. Since Moore does not
overcome
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007