Appeal No. 2000-0971
Application No. 08/642,224
that they do not understand how the examiner fails to find orthogonal tilts in the
language of claim 14. (See brief at page 7.) We agree with the examiner that the
language of claim 14 does not explicitly require the orthogonal tilt as a second recited
functionality while the first tilt functionality remains present. With this said, we find that
Donahue teaches two orthogonal planes of motion as control functions which would
have suggested to skilled artisans the use of two orthogonal planes of tilt for varied
control functions. Appellants argue that Donahue teaches only opposite and parallel
scrolling, but does not teach “orthogonal scrolling.” We do not find a limitation of
orthogonal scrolling in the language of claim 14, but only a different action. Therefore,
this argument is not persuasive, and we will sustain the rejection of claim 14.
With respect to claim 15, appellants argue that it is not inherent or obvious to use
tilt in an orthogonal direction to control the page change. (See brief at page 8.) The
examiner maintains that it is inherent the tilt in the left/right direction controls the page
change. (See answer at page 4.) We disagree with the examiner and find that the
examiner has not provided evidence to support the conclusion. Therefore, we will not
sustain the rejection of dependent claim 15.
With respect to claim 24, the examiner maintains that the teaching of goggles in
Donahue would have suggested the mounting of a control element to eyeglasses and
that the change in location would have been within the level of ordinary skill. (See
answer at page 4.) We agree with the examiner that the control element may be
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007