Appeal No. 2005-1268
Application No. 10/044,728
We disagree. Shinichiro teaches the basic claimed invention and the problem
addressed thereby. The examiner only used Heath to show that such typical data
processing structure, or instructions, was known to be used in data processing systems
where cursors are controlled. Heath was not employed for its specific control of the
mouse pointer. That control is taught by Shinichiro.
Appellant argues, at pages 7-8, of the principal brief, that Shinichiro does not
teach that the pointer returns to its previous appearance when the rate movement for
the pointing device decreases below the given threshold of speed.
Shinichiro clearly suggests, at paragraphs 0027 and 0028 of the translation, that
when a speed threshold is not exceeded, the cursor will be as “usual.” This is indicative
of the cursor appearance returning to normal, or “usual” when the threshold is not
exceeded. For a single threshold, this is exactly as taught by appellant. Where
there are multiple thresholds, we find that Shinichiro’s teaching of returning the cursor
appearance to normal when below a certain single threshold, would have been
suggestive to artisans that where there are multiple thresholds, as the speed falls below
each particular threshold, the cursor, or pointer, appearance will change back to the
appearance it had between particular thresholds.
While we have not sustained the rejection of claims rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§102 (b) because of a lack of a specific teaching of multiple thresholds or “a series of
different changes in presentation” by Shinichiro, if prosecution is continued, the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007