Appeal No. 2005-2486
Application No. 10/331,384
term “matching” in interpreting the limitation of claim 1. Appellant asserts that a more
suitable definition is “one that is like another in one or more specified quantities.”
Further appellant argues:
Notwithstanding the fact that the examiner ignores the portion of the
definition for "match'', which includes the phrase "equal to", more importantly the
Examiner fails to show or assert that a match exists between the elements being
claimed as matching. Specifically, the Examiner merely notes a similarity
between orientation and movement of the device relative to the amount of
panning on the screen, which is different than showing a match exists between
the amount of movement of the device and the amount of panning of the image
being displayed on the display. While the direction of movement of the device
may be similar to the direction of panning of the image being presented on the
display, the amount of movement of the device and the amount of panning of the
image being displayed do not match, as provided for in the claims. In fact
Feinstein, ‘198, expressly suggests that any exact correlation between
orientation changes and actual navigation of the display should be minimized
(col. 3, line 65 to col. 4, line 2).
Further, on page 3 of the reply brief, appellant argues:
Any attempt to relate an image displacement, of the type associated with
panning, with an angular change, of the type associated with a change in
orientation of the device, is akin to comparing apples and oranges. There is no
formula taught or suggested for translating between an amount of change in
orientation associated with an angle, which can be measured in radians or
degrees, and an amount of panning or image displacement, which in the case of
a planer display would involve a lateral displacement that can be measured in
inches or centimeters. In view of this very fundamental difference, the reference
can not be said to involve an amount of movement of a hand held device, which
can be said to reasonably compare to an amount of panning, let alone teach and
require corresponding amounts that match.
In response the examiner states, on page 5 of the answer, that appellant’s
proposed definition is broader than that proposed by the examiner and that it shows that
“equal” is not a requirement to being a match. Further, the examiner states “[i]t is also
noted that in [sic] the specification does not specify that the amounts of movement be
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007