Appeal No. 2006-1093
Application No. 09/842,471
We will also sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 49 because the
claim also fully reads on Robertson. Specifically, the claim merely broadly
recites that motion of the pointing cursor is "modified" as a user moves a pointing
device from a source point icon to the predicted destination point icon. The
claim, however, does not specify how such modification is achieved. The scope
and breadth of the claim does not preclude mere cursor movement from one
control to another in Robertson (i.e., the cursor's motion is "modified" at least
when the user starts and stops moving the cursor). Accordingly, the examiner’s
rejection of claim 49 is therefore sustained.
We will not, however, sustain the examiner’s rejection of dependent claims
48, 51, and 54. The examiner indicates that the “NEW,” “OPEN,” and “CLOSE”
buttons constitute destination point icons that are highlighted when the cursor
moves to them [answer, page 13]. We disagree with the examiner that this
feature reasonably constitutes highlighting a destination point icon responsive to
the prediction step in the manner claimed essentially for the reasons noted by the
appellant. Accordingly, the examiner's rejection of claims 48, 51, and 54 is
therefore reversed.
In summary, we have not sustained the examiner's rejection with respect
to claims 1-46, 48, 51, and 54 on appeal. We have, however, sustained the
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007