Appeal No. 2002-2023 Paper 31 Application No. 08/689,526 Page 7 and uses only the current position of the cursor in relation to the barrier as a means of determining cursor control actions and does not determine the pointer movement line (note you need at least two points to determine "line of movement") (Paper 20, ¶ bridging pp. 6-7, emphasis added). Similarly, appellant stated that [i]n McCambridge et al., a cursor is displayed with one or several different cursor orientations depending on the current cursor position. ... McCambridge et al. do not teach or suggest the steps of changing an orientation of the pointer responsive to the compared pointer movement line with said barrier, as taught and claimed by Applicant in claim 1. ... McCambridge et al. do not disclose or remotely suggest providing predetermined pointer movement control actions responsive to the compared pointer movement line with a barrier. McCambridge et al. do not disclose or remotely suggest ... changing an orientation of the pointer responsive to the comparing a pointer movement line with a selected area of the user interface display screen defined as the barrier. [Brief, ¶ bridging pp. 16-17, original emphasis.] Therefore, we interpret the phrase "changing an orientation of the pointer responsive to said compared pointer movement line with said barrier" to preclude using only the current position (i.e., one point) of the pointer in relation to the barrier as a means of orienting the pointer.5 V. Issues on appeal The references relied on by the examiner are: Kanamaru et al. (Kanamaru) 5,298,890 Mar. 29, 1994 McCambridge et al. (McCambridge) 5,657,050 Aug. 12, 1997 (filed Jan. 30, 1996) Keyson 5,703,620 Dec. 30, 1997 (filed Oct. 26, 1995). 5 Use of at least two points to determine pointer movement is inherent in the step of "changing a speed of pointer movement responsive to said compared pointer movement line with said barrier" because the pointer is moving.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007