Appeal No. 1998-0936
Application 08/369,011 Page 7
light signals to position the cursor, we find that the examiner
has failed to establish a prima facie case of anticipation of the
invention set forth in claims 1-3, 15, and 17. The rejection of
claims 1-3, 15, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is therefore
reversed.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 7, 8, 16, and 18
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Auerbach.
Independent claim 7, like claim 1, requires that the circuit
connected to each of the IRLEDs sequentially pulses the IRLEDs to
cause the IRLEDs to individually and sequentially emit modulated
and infrared signals. Even if, assuming arguendo, the circuitry
of Auerbach is capable of sequentially pulsing the diodes to
cause the diodes to individually and sequentially emit the
modulated infrared signals, we find no suggestion in Auerbach,
and no suggestion or convincing line of reasoning has been
brought to our attention by the examiner, that would have
motivated an artisan to sequentially pulse the diodes to cause
the diodes to individually and sequentially emit modulated
infrared signals, as required by independent claim 7.
Accordingly, we find that the examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness of claims 7, 8, 16, and 18. The
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007