Appeal No. 2005-1268
Application No. 10/044,728
But claim 1 also calls for the presentation of the pointer being “a series of
different changes in presentation based on the rate of the movement for the pointing
device.”
Appellant argues that Shinichiro does not teach this limitation. From our review
of the Shinichiro translation, it does appear that the reference discloses only one
threshold and one change in the appearance of the cursor when that single threshold is
exceeded. Shinichiro does not teach “a series of different changes in presentation...,”
as claimed. The examiner has not convinced us that Shinichiro discloses this claimed
subject matter because the examiner’s response to appellant’s argument is merely to
point to paragraphs 0024-0026, “where there are multiple threshold rates of speed to
determine changes in the cursor display. These features of Shinichiro is [sic] the same
as automatically updating a presentation of the pointer using a series of different
changes in presentation based on the rate of movement or rates of movement as
disclosed by the applicant” (answer-page 6). Reference to the paragraphs cited by the
examiner indicates no such teaching of a “series of different changes in presentation.”
Accordingly, since we find no teaching in Shinichiro of the claimed “series of
different changes in presentation,” we will not sustain the rejection of claim 1, or of
claims 6, and 8-10, dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. §102 (b).
Similarly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 11, 15, and 16 under
35 U.S.C. §102 (b) because these claims contain a similar limitation.
We enter the following NEW GROUND OF REJECTION, in accordance with
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007