Appeal No. 2005-2486
Application No. 10/331,384
The speeds are selected by the user. See column 9, lines 23-32. However, we do not
find that Feinstein teaches that the amount of movement of the display device controls
the amount of panning, scrolling speed, of the display, i.e. the magnitude of the pitch
and roll does not affect the scroll speed. See for example figure 7C which depicts
change in orientation of the display device and figure 7D which depicts scrolling of the
display. We note scrolling is independent of the magnitude of change in orientation of
the device. Thus, we do not find that Feinstein teaches the limitation of an “amount the
image being displayed on the display is panned matches the amount of movement of
the hand held device.” Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1 and 11 or dependent claims 2 through 8, 10, 12 through 18 and
20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Claims 9 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Feinstein in view of Berting. Claims 9 and 19 ultimately depend upon claims 1 and
11 respectively. The examiner has not asserted, nor do we find, that Berting teaches
the limitation of an “amount the image being displayed on the display is panned
matches the amount of movement of the hand held device.” Accordingly, we will not
sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 9 and 19 for the reasons discussed supra with
respect to claims 1 and 11.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007