Appeal No. 2002-0654
Application No. 09/024,311
We have carefully reviewed our original opinion in light of
appellants’ request, but we find no point of law or fact which
we overlooked or misapprehended in the writing of our decision.
Even in light of appellants’ current arguments set forth in the
request for rehearing, we find no error in the analysis or logic
set forth in our original opinion.
In an overview sense appellants’ arguments in the request
essentially repeat those arguments set forth generally in the
principal brief on appeal as well as the reply brief. General
arguments with respect to independent claims 1, 9, 16, 18 and 19,
which are all independent claims which recite in some manner the
feature of “automatically and without further user input,” were
recognized by us as the argued key limitation in our prior
decision throughout the bulk of it.
This limitation does not recite that no user input at all is
required, only “further” user input is not required. As
disclosed in this application and as taught in Rosenberg, normal
user movements of a mouse transversing or otherwise manipulation
or touching displayed graphical objects are still contemplated in
both. Rosenberg’s operations are as automatic and as without
further user input as the feature claimed. The user in both
instances still moves the mouse to move the curser, but no
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007