Appeal No. 2004-1026 Page 5
Application No. 09/028,480
OPINION
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or the appellants in toto, we
focus on the points of contention therebetween, which follow:
• detecting pen-down position
• prohibiting gesture-based editing.
A. DETECTING PEN-DOWN POSITION
The examiner finds, "[f]or gesture 310, the hot-spot is at the pen-down
coordinate, and the body of the gesture can be drawn overlapping other area of the
screen (Tannenbaum's figure 10)." (Supp. Examiner's Answer3 at 7.) The appellants
argue, "with regard to Tannenbaum's gesture 310, it is unclear whether the hot spot is
at the pen-down position or the pen-up position." (Supp. Reply Br. at 8.)
In addressing the point of contention, the Board conducts a two-step analysis.
First, we construe the claims at issue to determine their scope. Second, we determine
whether the construed claims would have been obvious.
1. Claim Construction
"Analysis begins with a key legal question — what is the invention claimed?"
Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed.
3We rely on and refer to the Supplemental Examiner's Answer, (Paper No. 27), in
lieu of the original Examiner's Answer, (Paper No. 21), because the latter was defective.
Ex parte Shigematsu, No. 2001-2280 (Bd.Pat.App. & Int. Sep. 11, 2003). The original
Examiner's Answer was not considered in deciding this appeal.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007