Appeal No. 2006-1093
Application No. 09/842,471
In view of this analysis, we conclude that the scope and breadth of the
claim language does not preclude the disclosure of Robertson. In Fig. 4, for
example, the motion vector resulting from the user's moving the cursor from one
point to another would be necessarily compared to a previously-acquired motion
vector to predict the "destination point icon" (i.e., control).4
Furthermore, in Fig. 6 of Robertson, the motion vectors acquired while the
user moves the cursor along paths 158 and 164 are considerably different than
those acquired in the control region 152 in proximity with control 150. That is, the
vectors created along the straight path 158 have at least a substantially constant
direction, unlike the vectors created along curved path 162. Thus, the existence
of the “destination point icon” (control 150) would necessarily be predicted by
comparing the respective motion vectors from path 162 to path 158.
In fact, such a result follows from comparing the successive vectors
created in path 162 alone. In this case, as the user moves the cursor along the
curved path 162 in the vicinity of control 150, each successive vector will have at
least a different direction. The existence of the control 150 would necessarily be
predicted by comparing the respective motion vectors.
In short, claims 47, 50, and 53 are fully met by the disclosure of
Robertson. Accordingly, the examiner’s rejection of independent claims 47, 50,
and 53 is sustained.
4 The limitation “destination point icon” fully reads on the control given the limitation's broadest
reasonable interpretation.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007