Appeal No. 1997-1665 Page 23
Application No. 08/289,134
Accordingly, the limitations require temporarily stopping
execution of a command.
The examiner fails to show a suggestion of the
limitations in the prior art. He admits, "CAPPS is silent
about the operation being temporarily stopped ...."
(Examiner's Answer at 8.) The examiner fails to allege, let
alone show, that Shojima cures this deficiency. Faced with
the deficiency, the examiner alleges, "Agulnick, however,
discloses stop operation being performed until a release
operation is performed (column 17, lines 1-14 and [sic])."
(Id.)
The reference, however, does not support the allegation.
The section of Agulnick on which the examiner relies teaches
"sensing of the proximity of the stylus tip to the display
surface of the computer ...." Col. 17, ll. 3-4. There is no
suggestion of stopping an operation. In view of this
deficiency, we are not persuaded that teachings from the prior
art would have suggested the limitations of "said operation
further serves to temporarily stop execution thereof, the
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007