Appeal No. 1999-1995
Application No. 08/772,840
Appellant (Brief, page 4) points to column 9, lines 5-10,
of Culver as evidence that the cylinder cannot be a support
for an appendage. Specifically, Culver states (column 8, line
68-
column 9, line 5) that "a downward push by the hand on
cylinder 64, on shaft 62, or on either of a pair of end pads
165 (FIG. 3) coupled to frame 68 is sufficient to actuate
switch 156, the switch being normally open and is closed when
cylinder 64 moves downwardly." In other words, pressure on
the cylinder enables the mouse input circuit. For the
cylinder to "support" the user's hand or arm, the cylinder
must be able to withstand a certain amount of downward force
or pressure without actuating switch 156. Thus, we agree with
appellant that Culver appears to teach away from using the
cylinder to support a user's appendage, and any other
interpretation of Culver would be unreasonable.
In addition, appellant (Brief, page 4) points to Culver's
use of an additional element on which to rest the palm of the
hand as further evidence that Culver's cylinder is not to be
used for support for a user's appendage. In particular,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007