Appeal No. 2006-1093
Application No. 09/842,471
Pages 7 and 8, infra, of this opinion,1 Robertson does not reasonably teach nor
suggest storing the set of motion vectors and the first destination position
referenced to the first source position as claimed. Calculating a deviation in a
cursor’s X and Y coordinates derived from the X and Y components of a
correction vector to update the cursor’s X and Y coordinates in Robertson does
not necessarily entail storing a set of motion vectors and the first destination
position referenced to the first source position as claimed.
Furthermore, we disagree with the examiner that Robertson inherently
stores a set of motion vectors as the cursor moves from one position to another.
Rather, the X and Y coordinates of such motion are stored in Robertson’s
system. Although motion vectors can be calculated from a cursor’s X and Y
coordinates as the cursor moves,2 there is no express or implied teaching in
Robertson to store the generated vectors and the first destination position
referenced to the first source position as claimed.3
Consequently, Robertson fails to disclose -- expressly or inherently --
every limitation recited in independent claims 1, 17, and 33. Accordingly, we will
not sustain the examiner’s anticipation rejection of those claims. Since we do not
sustain the examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 17, and 33, we likewise
1 See also Robertson, Fig. 6 (showing a set of correction vectors 156 that point to the center of
control 150).
2 See Pages 7 and 8, infra, of this opinion.
3 We note, however, that the question of whether storing motion vectors corresponding to cursor
movement in lieu of storing the cursor’s X and Y coordinates corresponding to such movement
would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention constitutes an
obviousness issue under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) that is not before us.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007