Appeal 2007-2519
Application 10/616,208
which is a graphical widget, with a stylus. In response, the
graphical widget will increase in size such that the user can
more easily enter the name. When the user is finished, the user
may select the return widget and have the name text field return
to its original size and layout [emphasis added].
(Amro, col. 6, ll. 4-9).
In particular, we note that when a user ceases entering data into
Amro’s data entry window (i.e., graphical widget), the display does not
return to its normal (smaller) size until the user actively selects the return
widget (see Amro, col. 5, ll. 53-54). Alternately, the user must reselect the
graphical widget to cause the graphical widget to be resized to its original
size (see Amro, col. 5, ll. 54-57). Therefore, we do not agree with the
Examiner that Amro fairly teaches or suggests the language of instant claims
1 and 10 that requires the enlarged image of the displayed data to be reduced
to its original (predetermined) size “when said sensed manipulating of the
control is determined to have ceased.” (claim 1). See also the equivalent
language recited in independent claim 10, i.e., “when user manipulating of
said control has ceased.”).
Hindsight
Appellant further contends the Examiner has impermissibly relied
upon hindsight in formulating the rejection (see Br. 13).
The Examiner asserts in the rejection that an artisan, having
knowledge of Feyereisen’s aircraft display system, would have looked to the
stylus-triggered enlargement and return-to-original-size feature of Amro’s
personal digital assistant (PDA) for the purpose of achieving “ease and
accuracy of user input parameters.” (see Answer 4).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013