Appeal No. 2004-1764 Page 4
Application No. 08/704,400
OPINION
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or the appellants in toto, we
focus on the point of contention therebetween. Noting that "Levine teaches at page 6
lines 9 to 29 and page 7 lines 20 to 23 the cursor rate is proportional to voltage V1 and
that cursor rate may change over time," (Examiner's Answer at 12), and that "[a] change
in V1 causes a change in cursor rate and a change in Vc," (id.), the examiner finds,
"thus, figure 2 is modified by this embodiment to show Vc varying by varying the slope
of the curve from point A to point B to point C in order to change the speed of the
cursor." (Id.) He then asserts, "from a voltage at point A to a voltage at point B the
cursor's speed is within a first range and thus from a voltage at point B to a voltage at
point C the cursor's speed is within a second range." (Id. at 12-13.) The appellants
argue, "the arbitrary designation of midpoint B as the boundary between the 1st speed
range and the 2nd speed range for Levine as asserted by Examiner Brier is determined
after a release of a cursor button 1 illustrated in FIG. 1 of Levine (i.e., a post-
determination, not a pre-determination)." (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 are anticipated.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007