Appeal No. 2003-0160
Application No. 08/971,320
analysis by appellant as to support this contention. Rather, we find that appellant has
set forth rather broad structural and functional limitations to cover a wide range of
pointing devices and thereby allowing the prior art to suggest the invention as recited in
the express language of independent claim 1. In the reply brief, appellant essentially
reiterates the same arguments that we have not found persuasive above. Therefore,
we will sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and independent claims 4, 10, and
13-15 and their dependent claims which appellant has elected to group therewith over
the combination of Stephan and Siefer.
With respect to the combination of Stephan and Guscott, the examiner applies
Guscott in the same manner as Siefer, and appellant has made similar arguments as
above which we have not found persuasive. In the reply brief, appellant essentially
reiterates the same arguments that we have not found persuasive above. Therefore,
we will sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and independent claims 4, 10, and
13-15 and their dependent claims which appellant has elected to group therewith over
the combination of Stephan and Guscott.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 11,
and 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007