Appeal No. 2006-2736 Page 5
Application No. 10/038,167
"With this representation in mind, rather than reiterate the positions of the
examiner or the appellants in toto, we focus on the point of contention therebetween."
Ex parte Morris, No. 2005-0439, 2005 WL 4779247, at *3 (Bd.Pat.App & Int. 2005).
The examiner finds that in Fenster "[e]ach detected directional movement of the mouse
(UP, UP/RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT/DOWN, DOWN, DOWN/LEFT, LEFT, AND LEFT/UP)
has a corresponding different function associated with it (rotate on screen depiction UP,
UP/RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT/DOWN, DOWN, DOWN/LEFT, LEFT, AND LEFT/UP
respectively)." (Examiner's Answer at 20.) He further finds that "rotation around the X-
axis, the Y-axis, or a combination of both, are separate control functions, uniquely
associated with corresponding mouse events." (Id.) The appellants argue that "the
different directions of movement result in the image on the display screen being rotated
in different directions and/or around different axes, but these different appearances are
basically the same calculation made with different inputs. . . ." (Reply Br. at 5.)
"In addressing the point of contention, the Board conducts a two-step analysis.
First, we construe the representative claim at issue to determine its scope. Second, we
determine whether the construed claim would have been obvious." Ex Parte Massingill,
No. 2003-0506, 2004 WL 1646421, at *2 (Bd.Pat.App & Int. 2004).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007