Appeal No. 2003-0160
Application No. 08/971,320
or no-light environment as recited in the language of independent claim 1. Therefore,
this argument is not persuasive.
Appellant argues that the claimed invention recites “a user-operable button for
providing a user input.” (See brief at page 5.) Appellant argues that the region 164 of
Stephan is not a button so it is not structurally or functionally a button. We emphatically
disagree with appellant. We find no structural or functional limitations recited in the
language of independent claim 1 which would preclude region 164 from being a user
operable button. Clearly, Stephan teaches that prior art pointing devices contained
buttons for operation in column 1 and in column 10 that region 164 may operate as a
button to allow a user to implement a desired command by tapping the region. We find
that this teaches “a user-operable button for providing a user input” as recited in the
language of independent claim 1. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Appellant argues that there is no suggestion to combine the teachings of the two
references so that the housing itself is visible so that the pointing device can be located
in low-light or no-light environments. We find no limitation with respect to the locating of
the device. The language of independent claim 1 merely requires that the housing
surface be visible. Clearly, an illuminated device would render the device visible in a
low-light or no-light environment. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Appellant argues that the examiner has picked apart the two references and
applied them in a piecemeal manner. (See brief at page 6.) We disagree and find no
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007