Appeal No. 2005-1268
Application No. 10/044,728
about appellant’s use of multiple thresholds, rather than Shinichiro’s single threshold, for
making more than the single change in pointer appearance taught by Shinichiro.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Finally, with regard to the rejection of claims 14 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. §103, we
will sustain the rejection of these claims because while these claims contain the
“multiple thresholds” limitation, and Shinichiro does not explicitly teach this limitation, we
find it would have been obvious, for the reasons supra, to adapt Shinichiro’s teaching of
a single threshold and a single change in appearance of a pointer to the situation of
multiple thresholds and multiple (or a “series of”) changes in appearance of the pointer.
Claim 14 further recites certain data processing structure, such as a bus,
communication unit, memory and a processing unit, while claim 18 further recites first,
second and third instructions in a computer program product. The examiner relies on
Heath to supply these teachings.
Appellant argues that Heath is not combinable with Shinichiro because the
former is directed to a system wherein a keyboard controlled cursor and a pointer
controlled by a pointing device can coexist on a visual display device, while the latter is
directed to altering a cursor display based on a rate of movement of a mouse so that the
cursor is easier to view. Appellant also argues that Heath does not teach the problem
addressed by the present invention, but teaches away since the pointer is temporarily
removed from the display.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007