Appeal No. 2000-2226 Page 5
Application No. 08/827,107
potion [sic],” (Examiner's Answer at 4), of Macor’s “ergonomic joystick 300. . . .” Col. 4,
l. 14. The portion 304, however, is not an indent. To the contrary, it is a “friction
bump 304. . . .” Id. at l. 16. The examiner fails to allege, let alone show, that the
addition of Harrison cures the deficiency of Nishiyama and Macor. Absent a teaching
or suggestion of a joystick having an indented top, the examiner fails to present a prima
facie case of obviousness. Therefore, we reverse the obviousness rejections of claim 1
and of claims 5-7, which fall therewith.
II. Claims 8 and 10-14
The examiner asserts, "Nishiyama discloses a 3X3 array with a zero button at
the bottom see figure 1, item 13." (Examiner's Answer at 4-5.) The appellants argue,
"the Examiner has still failed to indicate how or where Macor and Nishiyama teach or
suggest the . . . two successive downward movements of a joystick being used to reach
a zero key as claimed. . . ." (Reply Br. at 6.)
Independent claim 8 specifies in pertinent part the following limitations:
"displaying an image of a numeric keypad on a display, said image comprising a
plurality of digit keys with keys for digits 1 to 9 being arranged in a 3 x 3 array; . . .
wherein said image also comprises a zero digit key located below said 3 x 3 array, said
method comprising moving said joystick downward twice in succession to highlight said
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007