Appeal No. 2005-2486
Application No. 10/331,384
equal to and the only alternative form of the word ‘matches’ is ‘corresponding to’ found
on page 10, line 1.” The examiner asserts that Feinstein discloses this correspondence
between movement of the device and panning of the display in figures 1A through 1D
and the corresponding description.
We agree with the examiner’s interpretation of the term “match” and find that it
does not require that the matching terms be equal, but rather it requires some
correspondence between terms. However, we disagree with the examiner’s finding that
Feinstein teaches the limitation “wherein the amount the image being displayed on the
display is panned matches the amount of movement of the hand held device” as recited
in claim 1. We find that this limitation of claim 1 requires not only that there be a
correspondence between panning of the image and the movement of the display, but
also that there is a correspondence between the “amount”, some measurable quantity,
of movement and the “amount” of panning. Independent claim 11 contains a similar
limitation.
Feinstein teaches a hand held device which has a navigation mode which allows
the user of the device to scroll the display. See column 5, lines 35-39. In the navigation
mode, changes in pitch and roll orientation of the device provide the commands to the
device to scroll the display, i.e. a person holding the display rocks the display in the
direction the user desires to scroll the display. See column 7, lines 40-48 and figures
1A through 1D. Feinstein teaches several scroll speeds: fixed, fine, course, and
dynamically changing between fine and course, these speeds respectively correspond
to sections 144, 152, 156 and 154 of figure 7A. See column 8, lines 6-14, 21-28, 41-50.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007