Appeal No. 1999-2591
Application No. 08/628,995
Barker, we think appellants are reading the subject matter of
instant claim 1 a little too narrowly.
It is true that, in Barker, movement of the cursor in an
opposite direction, i.e., upward, after reaching the extent of
the ruler by moving downward, will cause the cursor to move
accordingly. However, the cursor will move upward only until the
extent of the ruler is again reached in the opposite direction,
at which point the cursor will, again, not move, while scrolling
in the opposite direction occurs. We find nothing in instant
claim 1 that precludes some intermediate movement of the cursor
so long as the processor is responsive to “any” movement (in
Barker, movement of the mouse upward when the ruler extent is
reached at the top and movement of the mouse downward when the
ruler extent is reached at the bottom constitute “any” movement
of the mouse) of the mouse in “either of two opposite directions”
(the two extents of the ruler in Barker are clearly in “two
opposite directions”). At these two extremes in Barker, the
location on the screen of neither the cursor nor the second
indicium is affected, as claimed. Thus, Barker meets the instant
claim language.
Accordingly, we hold that Barker does anticipate claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. 102(b).
6–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007