The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 37
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte DAVID D. MURESAN and DAVID MURESAN
____________
Appeal No. 2004-1621
Application No. 08/653,425
____________
HEARD: February 10, 2005
____________
Before BARRETT, BARRY, and LEVY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A patent examiner rejected claim 1. The appellants appeal therefrom under 35
U.S.C. § 134(a). We reverse.
BACKGROUND
The invention at issue on appeal is a mouse for moving a cursor on the display of
a computer. In a conventional mouse, as shown in Figure 11 of the appellant's
specification, a wheel presses a rubber ball against X- and Y-coordinate shafts. As the
1Because it only shows technology that was known, Figure 1 should be
"designated by a legend such as 'Prior Art.'" M.P.E.P. § 608.02(g).
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007