Appeal No. 96-1842
Application 08/193,356
independent claims.
Since the examiner has failed to properly identify the
differences between the invention of the independent claims
and Kinata, the examiner has provided no analysis as to why
these differences would have been obvious to the artisan in
view of the prior art. Therefore, the examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of the obviousness of independent
claims 1, 5 and 9. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1-11
as unpatentable over the teachings of Kinata is not sustained.
With respect to Berry, the examiner considers the
primary window to be the first claimed window and the help
window to be the second window [answer, page 5]. The cursor
selection point of the display is considered by the examiner
to be the claimed first point [id.]. The examiner maintains
that the help window in Berry is always maintained the same
distance from the cursor selection point. Appellant argues
that Berry provides no disclosure regarding holding the
vertical and horizontal distance between the cursor 20 and the
help window constant when the cursor 20 is moved as required
by the independent claims [brief, page 10]. The examiner
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007