Appeal No. 2002-1995
Application No. 09/071,488
operating the device with a single hand would change any
operation of the buttons, especially the buttons on one side of
the device still being operated by the single hand. While
appellants indicate that a single hand grasping Michel’s device
could not simultaneously grasp the device and operate the buttons
to navigate in computer program applications, it appears to us
that a user can grasp the binocular device in Michel’s Figure 5b
with a single hand with fingers on the buttons on one side of the
device.
Thus, for the same reasons we enunciated in the prior
decision of November 26, 2003, in Application Serial No.
09/071,489 (Appeal No. 2003-0167), we are not persuaded by
appellants’ arguments regarding the “single hand” limitation.
However, we are persuaded by appellants’ argument, at page 8
et seq. of the principal brief, regarding the “mouse” limitation.
Each of the instant independent claims 1 and 15, and hence
each claim on appeal, requires that the navigational input tools
comprise a “mouse including a force actuated pointer” integrated
within the housing.
Clearly, Michel discloses no such mouse, but the examiner
asserts that Michel “inherently includes...the claimed
navigational tools...including the claimed mouse (a user input
-8–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007