Appeal No. 2000-0971
Application No. 08/642,224
combination of Motosyuku and Kobayashi does not show or suggest the use of a
separate control element which is independent of the computing device. (See brief at
pages 11-12.) We agree with appellants that this combination does not teach or
suggest the use of a separate control element, on a watch or other article of wearing
apparel as was discussed above with respect to Donahue, which the examiner chose
not to apply in this rejection. Therefore, the examiner has not established a prima
facie case of obviousness with respect to the combination of Motosyuku and
Kobayashi, and we will not sustain the rejection of claims 3 and 25.
Appellants request that we suggest or recommend language such as “separately
moveable” to distinguish claim 3 over the prior art under 37 CFR 1.196(c). (See brief at
page 12.) We decline appellants’ invitation and do not find that language to distinguish
the claim over the prior art applied.
With respect to independent claims 8 and 16, the examiner maintains that
Takano and Tsuji teach the use of scrolling at a rate based in points per second. (See
answer at page 6.) We agree with the examiner that these references teach the use of
points per second and the points are a measure of font size. Appellants argue that the
term “point” has 34 definitions in the dictionary and that definition # 30 states that a
point is a unit of type size equal to 0.01384 inch or approx. 1/72 of an inch. (See brief
at page 13 and attachment to the amendment filed Feb. 17, 1999.) But we note that a
point may also be definition # 5 which is a mark or dot used in printing or writing and
11
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007