Appeal No. 2004-0508
Application No. 09/464,557
obviousness. Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d
1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
With respect to the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of appealed claims 4, 14, and 22, Appellant asserts that the
Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness since all of the claimed limitations are not taught
or suggested by any of the applied prior art references. In
particular, Appellant contends (Brief, pages 7 and 8; Reply
Brief, pages 2 and 3) that none of the applied prior art
references teaches or suggests indicating the position of a
cursor within a three-dimensional space relative to a two-
dimensional viewport by “varying a reflectivity of the cursor,” a
feature appearing in each of the appealed claims. Appellant
concludes that, with this asserted deficiency in the applied
references, the references even if combined would not result in
the invention as claimed.
After reviewing the arguments of record from Appellant and
the Examiner, we are in general agreement with Appellant’s
position as stated in the Briefs. We find nothing in any of the
applied prior art references which discloses the varying of the
reflectivity characteristic of a cursor to indicate the position
of a cursor in displayed space. While the Examiner has
apparently asserted correspondence between Lumelsky’s disclosure
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007