Appeal No. 2006-1456
Application No. 09/896,802
the internet. Appellants also again argue that Cheng does not teach determining
a URL responsive to a scrolling output. As previously discussed, we disagree.
Further, although Appellants state that Cheng does not teach or disclose “sense
of direction of a scrolling output” as claimed, Appellants fail to present any
argument as to why the Examiner’s obviousness reasoning on this point is
erroneous.
Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
V. Whether the Rejection of Claims 8, 10-11, 21, and 23-24 Under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the evidence
relied upon and the level of skill in the particular art would have suggested to one
of ordinary skill in the art the invention as set forth in claims 8, 10-11, 21, and 23-
24. Accordingly, we affirm.
With respect to dependent claim 8, Appellants argue at pages 14-15 of the
brief, that Cheng fails to teach that “the scrolling output may be used to scroll
through the web pages that correspond to [buttons].” We disagree. As already
discussed, column 8, lines 10-15, of Cheng explicitly teaches moving from
hyperlink (URL) to hyperlink (URL) using the scroll wheel. Further, this portion of
Cheng teaches that the moving can be alternatively activated by the scroll wheel
or scroll switch (i.e., buttons). Thus, Cheng teaches the claimed correspondence
or association. We note that Appellants label the claimed buttons in with
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007