Appeal No. 2006-1093
Application No. 09/842,471
in this decision. Arguments which appellant could have made but chose not to
make in the brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived [see
37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004)].
The examiner has indicated how the claimed invention is deemed to be
fully met by the disclosure of Robertson [answer, pages 3-7]. Regarding
independent claims 1, 17, and 33, appellant argues that Robertson does not
disclose generating a set of motion vectors corresponding to the motion of the
pointing cursor from the first source position to the first destination position [brief,
page 6]. Appellant argues, among other things, that Robertson discloses a
correction vector that is generated when the cursor is in proximity to a control
and such a correction vector is not the same as generating a set of vectors
corresponding to the motion of the pointing cursor from a source position to a
destination position [brief, page 6].
The examiner responds that Robertson inherently generates a set of
motion vectors corresponding to the cursor’s motion. According to the examiner,
during cursor movement, the system stores all positions that the cursor passes
through and generates a set of vectors from all these positions from the first
position to the destination position [answer, page 8].
Appellant also argues that Robertson does not disclose storing the set of
motion vectors and the first destination position referenced to the first source
position as claimed [brief, page 7]. Appellant notes that Robertson teaches
storing the X and Y coordinates of the cursor’s current and intended positions.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007