Appeal No. 2005-1268
Application No. 10/044,728
appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that the four corners of a
single prior art document describe every element of the claimed invention, either
expressly or inherently, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could practice the
invention without undue experimentation. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31
USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
With regard to instant claim 1, the examiner points to the abstract of Shinichiro
for a disclosure of the entire claimed subject matter.
Appellant does not dispute that Shinichiro discloses a method for changing a
pointer whereby a user input indicates that a pointer was moved, and whereby a rate of
movement is calculated for the pointing device. It is also clear that Shinichiro compares
this rate of movement with a given threshold of speed (abstract of Shinichiro or page 4,
lines 6-8, of the translation). Moreover, Shinichiro updates a presentation of the pointer
based on the given threshold of speed in response to the user input, wherein the
presentation of the pointer is altered if the rate of movement exceeds the given
threshold (see page 4, paragraph 0019, of the translation, where it is indicated that
when the threshold is exceeded the display size of the cursor, or the use of a
complementary color of the background, expanding the brightness difference around
the cursor, occurs).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007