Appeal No. 1999-2217
Application No. 08/735,776
Reference is made to the brief (paper no. 9) and the
answer (paper no. 11) for the respective positions of the
appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claim 1.
Frid-Nielsen teaches (column 8, lines 29 through 47) that
an intelligent screen cursor 275 (Figure 5B) that displays a
graphical representation of a mouse conveys more information
than a typical graphical pointer/screen cursor 225 (Figure
5A). The examiner recognizes (answer, pages 4 and 5) that
Frid-Nielsen does not teach “displaying, within said graphical
pointer, a graphical representation of said graphical pointing
device,” but nevertheless concludes (answer, page 4) that the
mouse icon disclosed by Frid-Nielsen “is equivalent to a
pointer with the image of a mouse within it.” Appellants
argue (brief, page 4) that:
As clearly enunciated in MPEP 2144.06, “[i]n
order to rely on equivalence as a rationale
supporting an obviousness rejection, the equivalency
must be recognized in the prior art, and cannot be
based on applicant’s disclosure or the mere fact
that the components are functional or mechanical
equivalents.” MPEP 2144.06 (citing In re Ruff, 256
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007