Appeal No. 1996-3362
Application No. 08/258,601
Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548, 220 USPQ
303, 309 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851
(1984).
On pages 6 through 8, Appellants argue that Levine does
not teach or suggest use of a pressure switch to select the
two cursor modes, absolute and relative. Appellants further
argue on pages 8 and 9 of the brief, that Faulkerson fails to
teach or suggest using a pressure switch to select between an
absolute mode and a relative mode.
In the Examiner's answer on page 3, the Examiner states
that the rejection is set forth in prior office action, Paper
No. 16. Turning to this office action, the Examiner states
that Levine does not teach the selection of different modes by
the use of a pressure activated switch. The Examiner argues
that Faulkerson teaches a multi-mode cursor control device
which provides a switch means for selecting cursor control
position mode or an optical scanner mode. The Examiner argues
that it would have been obvious to modify the pressure
activated switch of Levine to have the switching means of
Faulkerson, so that switching between different operation
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007