Appeal No. 2006-2255
Application No. 10/183,994
respect to a tracking assembly in a computer mouse are no more helpful than the
teachings of a tracking assembly in APA. Further, we do not sustain the rejection of
dependent claims 3, 8, 11, 17, and 25, since Suzuki does not remedy the deficiencies in
the rejections applied against the base claims.
As for independent claim 27, APA is deemed to teach a scrolling signal for
scrolling the image on a display independent of movement of a cursor (Answer at 4) and
Armstrong is relied upon for a similar teaching (id. at 5.) As appellants note (Brief at 9),
however, the “scrolling” described by Schein refers to movement of a cursor on a
screen, rather than movement of an image independent of movement of a cursor. We
agree with appellants to the extent that we find insufficient evidence on this record for a
suggestion to combine the method described by Schein with the type of scrolling
required by instant claim 27 so as to meet the terms of the claim. We thus do not
sustain the rejection of claim 27 or of claims 28-32, each incorporating the limitations of
claim 27.
Independent claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combination of
Schein and Armstrong. The claim requires, inter alia, that the rotatable member and the
actuator scroll the image independent of movement of a cursor or a pointer rendered on
the display screen. As we are not persuaded that the structures described by Schein
may be properly modified in view of the prior art teachings relating to scrolling an image
independent of the cursor in such a way to meet the terms of the claim, we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 33, nor of claims 34-36 depending therefrom.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007