Appeal No. 2000-0971
Application No. 08/642,224
In our view the teaching of controlling the cursor on a display would have been a
suggestion to also control the scrolling of information as taught by Motosyuku.
Furthermore, we find the examiner's line of reasoning concerning the use of the device
in Motosyuku in a hands free mode would have been desirable. Therefore, appellants'
argument is not persuasive. Appellants argue that Motosyuku states a one hand
operation and does not attempt to use a hands free mode. Therefore, there is no
reason to have a separate sensor as taught by Donahue. We disagree with appellants
as discussed above. Appellants argue that the examiner relied upon impermissible
hindsight. (See brief at page 6.) We disagree with appellants as discussed above.
Therefore, we will sustain the rejection of independent claim 3 and dependent claim 4
which has been grouped with claim 3 by appellants.
With respect to dependent claim 14, the examiner maintains that Motosyuku
teaches that up/down and left/right directions may be implemented with the system and
that these are orthogonal. (See answer at page 4.) We agree with the examiner that
Motosyuku contemplates the use of different directions, but it is not clear that
Motosyuku teaches or suggests both at the same time. (See appellants’ argument at
page 7 of the brief.) Donahue though clearly teaches and suggests the control of a
system using a tilt sensor that detects up/down and a sensor that detects rotational
motion. Clearly, the rotation would have been in an orthogonal plane to the up/down
motion. Therefore, this argument by appellants is not persuasive. Appellants argue
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007