Appeal No. 2002-2023 Paper 31
Application No. 08/689,526 Page 13
juncture where the cursor on the screen arrives at a boundary [i.e., barrier] of the
current designated area" (c. 4, ll. 32-35) (see also Figure 2, steps 003-006). Thus,
Kanamaru describes comparing the pointer movement line, i.e., the cursor's traveling
direction, with a designated barrier.
Third, as pointed out by the examiner (Answer, p. 10 ¶ 2),6 insofar as changing
the speed of pointer movement in response to comparing pointer movement line with
the barrier encompasses stopping cursor movement at the barrier, Kanamaru also
describes changing the speed of pointer movement as claimed. Specifically, in
Kanamaru Figure 4, case 3, "a cursor K located in a window 3 is moved in such a
direction that no windows or the like exist" (c. 6, ll. 39-43). The system "searches the
other designated areas which may lie in the cursor's traveling direction" and if it
determines that the cursor is not moving toward a designated area (i.e., after comparing
said pointer movement line with said barrier), it stops the cursor at the boundary of
window 3 (c. 6, ll. 44-55).
Thus, the dispositive question is whether the prior art discloses or suggests the
6 At first, it appeared that both appellant and the examiner agreed that Kanamaru did not disclose
or suggest providing predetermined pointer movement control actions that included changing both the
speed of the pointer movement and the orientation of the pointer in response to comparing the
pointer/cursor travelling direction with the designated barrier/selected area (Brief, p. 14, ¶ 2 and p. 16, ¶ 1;
Answer, p. 4, ¶ 2 and p. 5, ¶ 1). However, upon further consideration, the examiner argued that, insofar
as appellant's specification at page 5, lines 1-2, defined "changing speed" as including stopping cursor
movement at the barrier, Kanamaru actually did describe the claimed step of changing the speed of the
pointer movement in response to said compared pointer movement line with said barrier. Appellant did
not specifically address this portion of the Answer in its response to asserted "new points of argument
raised by the Examiner" (see Reply). Furthermore, while appellant's Reply, at page 2, expressly
referenced pages 3-4 and 8-9 of the Answer as containing new points of argument raised by the examiner,
the Reply did not argue that any new points of argument had been raised on page 10 of the Answer.
Moreover, our decision does not require that we reach the alternative modification of Kanamaru by Keyson
proffered by the examiner as rendering obvious the claimed step of providing predetermined pointer
movement control actions including changing the speed of pointer movement. Therefore, we do not reach
this aspect of the examiner's rejection.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007