Appeal No. 2006-1456
Application No. 09/896,802
the scrolling output. We disagree. Column 8, lines 10-15, of Cheng explicitly
teaches moving from hyperlink (URL) to hyperlink (URL) using the scroll wheel.
Appellants also argue at page 8 that Cheng teaches only navigating a single web
page as opposed to a linked set of web pages. We disagree. Column 1, lines
10-15, of Cheng explicitly teaches that Cheng is directed to the internet.
At page 10 of the brief, Appellants argue that “if receipt of a scrolling
signal causes operations to move from box 46 to box 54, it is axiomatic that
receipt of such a scrolling signal does not cause operations to move from box 46
to box 45.” We disagree. It is not axiomatic because the move from box 46 to
any other box is condition based and nothing requires that all conditions cause
the move to be from box 46 to box 54 to the exclusion of box 45.
Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
II. Whether the Rejection of Claim 29 Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is
proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the
disclosure of Cheng does fully meet the invention as recited in claim 29.
Accordingly, we affirm.
With respect to dependent claim 29, Appellants argue at page 11 of the
brief, that claim 29 is patentable because entering the Display Previous Page
Mode of Cheng does not determine the URL of the web page in response only to
a scrolling output. We disagree. As already pointed out by this Board, Column 8
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007