Appeal No. 1998-1388 Page 9
Application No. 08/357,678
....” Col. 5, ll. 53-54. The passage fails to teach,
however, a specialized path for any purpose, let alone one for
moving a position identifier into a specialized region. To
the contrary, it appears that the reference’s cursor may be
moved into its predefined region by any path with the same
effect. The examiner’s assertion that “[t]he specialized path
of Goldman involves crossing the outside of/inside of
predefined region boundary,” (Examiner’s Answer at 6),
supports such an interpretation of the reference.
In view of this interpretation, we are not persuaded that
Goldman teaches the claimed limitations of moving a position
identifier into a specialized region on a display screen via a
specialized path. The absence of this teaching negates
anticipation. The examiner also fails to allege, let alone
show, that Kerr remedies the defects of Goldman. In view of
these failures, we are also not persuaded that teachings from
the prior art would appear to have suggested the same claimed
limitations. Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claims 1,
2, 5, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, and 21 as anticipated by
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007