Appeal 2007-2519 Application 10/616,208 THE REFERENCES Feyereisen US 2003/0132860 A1 Jul. 17, 2003 Amro US 6,909,439 B1 Jun. 21, 2005 THE REJECTIONS Claims 1-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the teachings of Feyereisen in view of Amro. Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the Examiner, we make reference to the Brief and the Answer for the respective details thereof. ISSUE We find the following issue to be dispositive with respect to all claims on appeal: Whether Feyereisen or Amro teaches the recited limitation of “reducing the enlarged image of the data setting on the display from the predeterminately enlarged size to the predetermined size when said sensed manipulating of the control is determined to have ceased.” (claim 1, emphasis added; see also the equivalent language recited in independent claim 10). Although we need not reach the issue of hindsight to decide this appeal, we nevertheless agree with Appellant that the Examiner has impermissibly relied upon hindsight in formulating the rejection (see analysis infra). 3Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013