Ex Parte Harrison et al - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2004-0945                                                        
          Application No. 09/605,929                                                  
          as to which frame should be scrolled (specification, page 2).               
          The present invention provides for a scroll device which                    
          automatically scrolls the displayed frames wherein the frame that           
          has reached its end does not scroll anymore while the other frame           
          continues to scroll until its end is reached (specification, page           
          4).                                                                         
               Representative independent claim 1 is reproduced as follows:           
               1.   A method comprising:                                              
                    receiving a command to scroll each of a first frame for           
               display in a first display window and a second frame for               
               display in a second display window, said first and second              
               frames having a beginning and an end, at least one of said             
               frames being larger than its window;                                   
                    scrolling each frame in its window in response to said            
               command;                                                               
                    determining when the beginning or end of one of said              
               frames is displayed in its window; and                                 
                    automatically stopping the scrolling of a frame when              
               its beginning or end is displayed while continuing to scroll           
               the other of said frames.                                              
               The prior art references of record relied upon by the                  
          Examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:                              
               Gillick et al. (Gillick)      5,530,455      Jun. 25, 1996             
               Onda et al. (Onda)            5,877,760      Mar.  2, 1999             
               Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-13 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.           
          § 102(b) as being anticipated by Onda.                                      

                                         -2-                                          




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007