REOPENING PROSECUTION
In view of the Reply Brief (February 25, 2025), the Patent Board Decision (December 10, 2025), and the Appeal Dismissal (February 19, 2026), PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. The new grounds of Rejection are set forth below.
Appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/WILLIAM BODDIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2625
DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erickson (U.S. PG Pub 2006/0244724) in view of Tsai et al. (U.S. PG Pub 2010/0185797) in view of Neisler et al. (U.S. PG Pub 2016/0313813).
Regarding claim 1, Erickson teaches controller switch 305 (i.e., switching device) automatically switching output ports when (i.e., detecting an operation) a movement (i.e., perform at least one trigger operation) of mouse 128 (i.e., input device) meets a predetermined boundary condition such as the movement of mouse 128 off the right edge of display 322 such that workstation 320 is selected and/or the movement of mouse 128 off the left edge of display 342 such that workstation 340 is selected. Erickson para. 21. Accordingly, Erickson teaches the limitation "detecting an operation of at least one input device to at least one computer device via a switching device, wherein the at least one input device is configured to perform at least one trigger operation" recited in claim 1. See id.
Erickson further teaches operating systems on each of workstations 320 and 340 such that the operating system of workstation 320 and workstation 340 are different operating systems. Erickson para. 26, 34. Erickson also teaches monitoring the movement (i.e., to trigger at least one operating system of the at least one computer device) of mouse 128 on display 322 and 342 (i.e., to execute a cursor position marking function), which teaches the limitation "to trigger at least one operating system of the at least one computer device to execute a cursor position marking function" recited in claim 1. Erickson para. 26, 34-36.
Erickson teaches that controller switch 305 (i.e., switching device) automatically switches output ports when (i.e., detects) a movement (i.e., at least one trigger operation) of mouse 128 meets a predetermined boundary condition such as the movement of mouse 128 off the right edge of display 322 such that workstation 320 is selected and/or the movement of mouse 128 off the left edge of display 342 such that workstation 340 is selected. Erickson para. 21. Erickson further teaches monitoring the movement (i.e., to trigger at least one operating system of the at least one computer device) of mouse 128 on display 322 and 342 (i.e., generating at least one driving signal to the at least one computer device). See Erickson para. 26, 34-36. Accordingly, Erickson teaches the limitation "when the switching device detects the at least one trigger operation, the switching device generating at least one driving signal to the at least one computer device" recited in claim 1.
Erickson teaches each of workstations 320 and 340 have different operating systems and monitoring the movement (i.e., drives the at least one operating system of the at least one computer device) of mouse 128 on display 322 and 342 (i.e., to execute a cursor position marking function), which teaches the limitation "drives the at least one operating system of the at least one computer device to execute the cursor position marking function" recited in claim 1. Erickson para. 26, 34-36.
Erickson teaches monitoring the movement of mouse 128 on display 322 and 342, which teaches the limitation "the cursor position marking function controls at least one display device electrically coupled to the at least one computer device to display a cursor position marking effect on a cursor position" recited in claim 1. Erickson para. 26, 34-36.
Erickson teaches that controller switch 305 automatically switches output ports when a movement (i.e., trigger operation) meets a predetermined boundary condition such as the movement of mouse 128 (i.e., at least one input device) off the right edge of display 322 such that workstation 320 is selected (i.e., switched from operating a first computer device of the at least one computer device to operating a second computer device of the at least one computer device) and/or the movement of mouse 128 off the left edge of display 342 such that workstation 340 is selected. Erickson 21. Thus, Erickson teaches the limitation "wherein the at least one trigger operation comprises the at least one input device being switched from operating a first computer device of the at least one computer device to operating a second computer device of the at least one computer device" recited in claim 1.
Erickson teaches each of workstations 320 and 340 have different operating systems (i.e., wherein when a first operating system of the first computer device is different from a second operating system of the second computer device). Erickson para. 34. Erickson teaches that controller switch 305 (i.e., switching device) automatically switches output ports when (i.e., detects) a movement of mouse 128 meets a predetermined boundary condition such as the movement of mouse 128 off the right edge of display 322 such that workstation 320 is selected (i.e., generate a first driving signal to the first computer device) and/or the movement of mouse 128 off the left edge of display 342 such that workstation 340 is selected (i.e., the switching device is configured to generate a second driving signal to the second computer device). Erickson para. 21, 26, 34-36. Accordingly, Erickson teaches the limitations "wherein when a first operating system of the first computer device is different from a second operating system of the second computer device, the switching device is configured to generate a first driving signal to the first computer device" and "the switching device is configured to generate a second driving signal to the second computer device" recited in claim 1.
Erickson teaches that controller switch 305 automatically switches output ports when a movement of mouse 128 meets a predetermined boundary condition such as the movement of mouse 128 off the right edge of display 322 such that workstation 320 is selected (i.e., first display device electrically coupled to the first computer device displays the cursor position marking) and/or the movement of mouse 128 off the left edge of display 342 such that workstation 340 is selected (i.e., second display device electrically coupled to the second computer device displays the cursor position marking). Erickson para. 21, 26, 34-36. Thus, Erickson teaches the limitations "so that a first display device electrically coupled to the first computer device displays the cursor position marking" and "so that a second display device electrically coupled to the second computer device displays the cursor position marking" recited in claim 1.
Erickson is silent as to "by simulating a predetermined operation of the at least one input device wherein the at least one driving signal is generated without the at least one input device performing the predetermined operation" and "by simulating the predetermined operation of at least one predetermined key of a keyboard being pressed."
In analogous art, Tsai (i.e., Tsai pertains to keyboard controls that are input, which is in the same field of invention as the claimed invention; see Tsai " para. 3, 42, Abstract, Fig. 1) teaches simulation unit 140 is coupled to hot- key look up table 120 virtual key information and hot key identification information. Tsai para. 4 Tsai teaches when a computer apparatus is turned on, simulation unit 140 performs self tests (i.e., simulating a predetermined operation) on a keyboard and mouse (i.e., of the at least one input device) by transmitting virtual key information (i.e., wherein the at least one driving signal is generated) to the computer apparatus through hot key identification (i.e., predetermined operation) controller to pass the self testing of the computer apparatus (i.e., without the at least one input device performing the predetermined operation). Tsai para. 40. Thus, Tsai teaches the limitation "by simulating a predetermined operation of the at least one input device wherein the at least one driving signal is generated without the at least one input device performing the predetermined operation" recited in claim 1. Tsai teaches when a computer apparatus is turned on, simulation unit 140 performs self tests on a keyboard and mouse by transmitting virtual key information to the computer apparatus through hot key identification controller, which teaches the limitation "by simulating the predetermined operation of at least one predetermined key of a keyboard being pressed" recited in claim 1. Tsai para. 40. Also, Tsai's simulation unit performing self testing on a mouse teaches the limitation "simulating the predetermined operation of a predetermined movement operation of a mouse" recited in claim 1. Tsai para. 40.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (hereinafter "PHOSITA") to combine Erickson and Tsai to: (1) embed a keyboard-mouse switch in a computer apparatus via means of hot-key information, (2) save costs and/or (3) avoid conflicts with hot keys of application programs in the computer apparatus. Tsai para. 7-8.
The combination of Erickson and Tsai is silent as to "wherein the cursor position marking effect enables the cursor position to be noticeable, and is one of an amplified cursor and a dynamic ripple and . . . effect of the effect of the amplified cursor."
In analogous art, Neisler (Neisler pertains to determining the position of a cursor on a display screen, which is in the same field of invention as the present invention; see Neisler para. 2, Abstract) teaches showing location indicator 250 on display screen 200 at a location of cursor 210 such that location indicator 250 is at least one of an animated ripple-effect location indicator (i.e., noticeable dynamic ripple) or an enlarged cursor (i.e., noticeable amplified cursor), which teaches the limitations "wherein the cursor position marking effect enables the cursor position to be noticeable, and is one of an amplified cursor and a dynamic ripple" and "effect of the dynamic ripple, and effect of the amplified cursor" recited in claim 1. Neisler paras. 2, 35, 36, 45, Fig. 4D.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to combine Erickson, Tsai, and Neisler to provide "an easy-to see indicator" to "identify the location of the cursor." See Neisler, Abstract, paras. 4-5.
Regarding Claim 2, Erickson in view of Tsai et al. in view of Neisler et al. teach the cursor marking method of claim 1 (See Above). Erickson teaches wherein when the at least one input device (Figure 3, Elements 126 and 128. Paragraph 21) is switched to operate the second computer device (Figure 3, Element 340. Paragraph 21), the switching device (Figure 3, Element 330. Paragraph 21) drives the second operating system (Figure 5, Element 522. Paragraph 26) of the second computer device (Figure 3, Element 340. Paragraph 21) to execute the cursor position marking function (Figure 5, Element 523. Paragraph 26).
Regarding Claim 3, Erickson in view of Tsai et al. in view of Neisler et al. teach the cursor marking method of claim 1 (See Above). Erickson teaches wherein the cursor marking method further comprises:
when the at least one input device (Figure 3, Elements 126 and 128. Paragraph 21) operates the first computer device (Figure 3, Element 320. Paragraph 21) , the switching device (Figure 3, Element 330. Paragraph 21) driving the first operating system (Figure 5, Element 522. Paragraph 26) of the first computer device (Figure 3, Element 320. Paragraph 21) to execute the cursor position marking function (Figure 5, Element 523. Paragraph 26) in response to the at least one trigger operation (Figure 6, Element 620. Paragraph 34) of the at least one input device (Figure 3, Elements 126 and 128. Paragraph 21); and
when the at least one input device (Figure 3, Elements 126 and 128. Paragraph 21) operates the second computer device (Figure 3, Element 340. Paragraph 21), the switching device (Figure 3, Element 330. Paragraph 21) driving the second operating system (Figure 5, Element 522. Paragraph 26) of the second computer device (Figure 3, Element 340. Paragraph 21) to execute the cursor position marking function (Figure 5, Element 523. Paragraph 26) in response to the at least one trigger operation (Figure 6, Element 620. Paragraph 34) of the at least one input device (Figure 3, Elements 126 and 128. Paragraph 21), wherein the first operating system (Figure 5, Element 522. Paragraph 26) is different from (Paragraph 25. Erickson discloses “Referring to FIG. 5, a computer system 510 is one suitable implementation of each workstation (e.g., workstation 320 and workstation 340 of FIG. 3) connected to automatic switching device 330 in accordance with the preferred embodiments of the invention.” Therefore, both work stations 320 and 340 will have separate operating systems 522.) the second operating system (Figure 5, Element 522. Paragraph 26).
Regarding Claim 4, Erickson in view of Tsai et al. in view of Neisler et al. teach the cursor marking method of claim 3 (See Above). Erickson teaches wherein the at least one input device (Figure 3, Elements 126 and 128. Paragraph 21) comprises the keyboard (Figure 3, Element 126. Paragraph 21) and the mouse (Figure 3, Element 128. Paragraph 21),
wherein the step of the switching device (Figure 3, Element 330. Paragraph 21) driving the first operating system (Figure 5, Element 522. Paragraph 26) to execute the cursor position marking function (Figure 5, Element 523. Paragraph 26) comprises:
the switching device (Figure 3, Element 330. Paragraph 21) generating the first driving signal related to an operation of the at least one predetermined key (Paragraph 35) of the keyboard (Figure 3, Element 126. Paragraph 21) being pressed in response to a first predetermined movement operation of the mouse (Figure 3, Element 128. Paragraph 21), to drive the first operating system (Figure 5, Element 522. Paragraph 26) to execute the cursor position marking function (Figure 5, Element 523. Paragraph 26);
wherein the step of the switching device (Figure 3, Element 330. Paragraph 21) driving the second operating system (Figure 5, Element 522. Paragraph 26) to execute the cursor position marking function (Figure 5, Element 523. Paragraph 26) comprises:
the switching device (Figure 3, Element 330. Paragraph 21) generating the second driving signal related to a second predetermined movement operation of the mouse (Figure 3, Element 128. Paragraph 21) in response to the first predetermined movement operation of the mouse (Figure 3, Element 128. Paragraph 21), to drive the second operating system (Figure 5, Element 522. Paragraph 26) to execute the cursor position marking function (Figure 5, Element 523. Paragraph 26).
Regarding Claim 5, Erickson in view of Tsai et al. in view of Neisler et al. teach the cursor marking method of claim 1 (See Above). Erickson teaches further comprising: the switching device (Figure 3, Element 330. Paragraph 21) transmitting an enable signal (Figure 6, Element 610. Paragraph 34. The examiner notes that Element 610 (Select a workstation) is mislabeled in Figure 6 as Element 620.) generated by the at least one input device (Figure 3, Elements 126 and 128. Paragraph 21) in response to a user operation, to enable the cursor position marking function (Figure 5, Element 523. Paragraph 26) of the at least one operating system (Figure 5, Element 522. Paragraph 26).
Regarding Claim 6, Erickson in view of Tsai et al. in view of Neisler et al. teach the cursor marking method of claim 1 (See Above). Erickson teaches further comprising: the at least one computer device (Figure 3, Elements 320 and 340. Paragraph 21) automatically enabling (Figure 6, Element 610. Paragraph 34. The examiner notes that Element 610 (Select a workstation) is mislabeled in Figure 6 as Element 620.) the cursor position marking function (Figure 5, Element 523. Paragraph 26) of the at least one operating system (Figure 5, Element 522. Paragraph 26) in response to an operation of the switching device (Figure 3, Element 330. Paragraph 21).
Regarding Claim 7, Erickson in view of Tsai et al. in view of Neisler et al. teach the cursor marking method of claim 1 (See Above). Erickson teaches further comprising: the at least one computer device (Figure 3, Elements 320 and 340. Paragraph 21) enabling (Figure 6, Element 610. Paragraph 34. The examiner notes that Element 610 (Select a workstation) is mislabeled in Figure 6 as Element 620.) the cursor position marking function (Figure 5, Element 523. Paragraph 26) of the at least one operating system (Figure 5, Element 522. Paragraph 26) in response to an execution of an application program (Figure 6, Element 610. Paragraph 34. The examiner notes that Element 610 (Select a workstation) is mislabeled in Figure 6 as Element 620.) prestored in the switching device (Figure 3, Element 330. Paragraph 21).
Regarding Claim 8, Claim 8 recites similar features as independent claim 1. Per the PTAB decision (December 10, 2025), the Office applies the rejection of independent Claim 1 to independent Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 9, Erickson in view of Tsai et al. in view of Neisler et al. teach the switching device (Figure 3, Element 330. Paragraph 21) of claim 8 (See Above). Erickson teaches wherein the trigger operation (Figure 6, Element 620. Paragraph 34) comprises the at least one input device (Figure 3, Elements 126 and 128. Paragraph 21) being switched (Figure 6, Element 630, Sub- Element YES. Paragraph 35) from operating the second computer device (Figure 3, Element 340. Paragraph 21) to operating the first computer device (Figure 3, Element 320. Paragraph 21), so that the processor (Figure 3, Element 305. Paragraph 21) is configured to generate the first driving signal and drive the first operating system (Figure 5, Element 522. Paragraph 26) of the first computer device (Figure 3, Element 320. Paragraph 21) to execute the cursor position marking function (Figure 5, Element 523. Paragraph 26) via a first output interface (Figure 3, Element 307. Paragraph 21) of the plurality of output interfaces (Figure 3, Elements 307 and 308. Paragraph 21), to display the cursor position marking effect on the first display device electrically coupled to the first computer device (Figure 3, Element 320. Paragraph 21).
Regarding Claim 10, Erickson in view of Tsai et al. in view of Neisler et al. teach the switching device (Figure 3, Element 330. Paragraph 21) of claim 9 (See Above). Erickson teaches wherein when the at least one input device (Figure 3, Elements 126 and 128. Paragraph 21) operates the second computer device (Figure 3, Element 340. Paragraph 21), the processor (Figure 3, Element 305. Paragraph 21) is configured to generate the second driving signal and drive the second operating system (Figure 5, Element 522. Paragraph 26) of the second computer device (Figure 3, Element 340. Paragraph 21) to execute the cursor position marking function (Figure 5, Element 523. Paragraph 26) via a second output interface (Figure 3, Element 308. Paragraph 21) of the plurality of output interfaces (Figure 3, Elements 307 and 308. Paragraph 21), to display the cursor position marking effect on the second display device electrically coupled to the second computer device (Figure 3, Element 340. Paragraph 21);
wherein the first operating system (Figure 5, Element 522. Paragraph 26) is different from (Paragraph 25. Erickson discloses “Referring to FIG. 5, a computer system 510 is one suitable implementation of each workstation (e.g., workstation 320 and workstation 340 of FIG. 3) connected to automatic switching device 330 in accordance with the preferred embodiments of the invention.” Therefore, both work stations 320 and 340 will have separate operating systems 522.) the second operating system (Figure 5, Element 522. Paragraph 26), and the first driving signal is different from (Paragraph 25. Erickson discloses “Referring to FIG. 5, a computer system 510 is one suitable implementation of each workstation (e.g., workstation 320 and workstation 340 of FIG. 3) connected to automatic switching device 330 in accordance with the preferred embodiments of the invention.” Therefore, both work stations 320 and 340 will have separate operating systems 522.) the second driving signal.
Regarding Claim 11, Erickson in view of Tsai et al. in view of Neisler et al. teach the switching device (Figure 3, Element 330. Paragraph 21) of claim 8 (See Above). Erickson teaches wherein the at least one input device (Figure 3, Elements 126 and 128. Paragraph 21) comprises the keyboard (Figure 3, Element 126. Paragraph 21) and the mouse (Figure 3, Element 128. Paragraph 21), the processor (Figure 3, Element 305. Paragraph 21) is further configured to generate the at least one driving signal related to an operation of the at least one predetermined key (Paragraph 35) of the keyboard (Figure 3, Element 126. Paragraph 21) being pressed, a second predetermined movement operation of the mouse (Figure 3, Element 128. Paragraph 21) or a combination thereof in response to a first predetermined movement operation of the mouse (Figure 3, Element 128. Paragraph 21), to drive the corresponding operating system (Figure 5, Element 522. Paragraph 26) of the one of the plurality of computer devices (Figure 3, Elements 320 and 340. Paragraph 21) to execute the cursor position marking function (Figure 5, Element 523. Paragraph 26) via the one corresponding output interface of the plurality of output interfaces (Figure 3, Elements 307 and 308. Paragraph 21).
Regarding Claim 12, Erickson in view of Tsai et al. in view of Neisler et al. teach the switching device (Figure 3, Element 330. Paragraph 21) of claim 8 (See Above). Erickson teaches wherein the processor (Figure 3, Element 305. Paragraph 21) is further configured to receive an enable signal (Figure 6, Element 610. Paragraph 34. The examiner notes that Element 610 (Select a workstation) is mislabeled in Figure 6 as Element 620.) generated by the at least one input device (Figure 3, Elements 126 and 128. Paragraph 21) being operated and transmit the enable signal (Figure 6, Element 610. Paragraph 34. The examiner notes that Element 610 (Select a workstation) is mislabeled in Figure 6 as Element 620.) to the one of the plurality of computer devices (Figure 3, Elements 320 and 340. Paragraph 21), to enable the cursor position marking function (Figure 5, Element 523. Paragraph 26) of the corresponding operating system (Figure 5, Element 522. Paragraph 26) of the one of the plurality of computer devices (Figure 3, Elements 320 and 340. Paragraph 21).
Regarding Claim 13, Erickson in view of Tsai et al. in view of Neisler et al. teach the switching device (Figure 3, Element 330. Paragraph 21) of claim 8 (See Above). Erickson teaches wherein the processor (Figure 3, Element 305. Paragraph 21) is further configured to execute a setting program (Figure 6, Element 610. Paragraph 34. The examiner notes that Element 610 (Select a workstation) is mislabeled in Figure 6 as Element 620.) when being not in response to an operation of the at least one input device (Figure 3, Elements 126 and 128. Paragraph 21), to enable the cursor position marking function (Figure 5, Element 523. Paragraph 26) of the corresponding operating system (Figure 5, Element 522. Paragraph 26) of the one of the plurality of computer devices (Figure 3, Elements 320 and 340. Paragraph 21).
Regarding Claim 14, Erickson in view of Tsai et al. in view of Neisler et al. teach the switching device (Figure 3, Element 330. Paragraph 21). Erickson teaches of claim 8 (See Above). Erickson teaches further comprising: a memory (Figure 5, Element 520. Paragraph 25) electrically coupled to the processor (Figure 3, Element 305. Paragraph 21) and configured to store an application program; wherein the one of the plurality of computer devices (Figure 3, Elements 320 and 340. Paragraph 21) is configured to access the application program through the processor (Figure 3, Element 305. Paragraph 21), to enable (Figure 6, Element 610. Paragraph 34. The examiner notes that Element 610 (Select a workstation) is mislabeled in Figure 6 as Element 620.) the cursor position marking function (Figure 5, Element 523. Paragraph 26) of the corresponding operating system (Figure 5, Element 522. Paragraph 26) of the one of the plurality of computer devices (Figure 3, Elements 320 and 340. Paragraph 21).
Regarding Claim 15, Claim 15 recites similar features as independent claim 1. Per the PTAB decision (December 10, 2025), the Office applies the rejection of independent Claim 1 to independent Claim 15.
Regarding Claim 16, Erickson in view of Tsai et al. in view of Neisler et al. teach the computer system of claim 15 (See Above). Erickson teaches wherein when the at least one input device (Figure 3, Elements 126 and 128. Paragraph 21) is switched (Figure 6, Element 630, Sub-Element YES. Paragraph 35) to operate the second computer device (Figure 3, Element 340. Paragraph 21) , the switching device (Figure 3, Element 330. Paragraph 21) generates the at least one driving signal to the second computer device (Figure 3, Element 340. Paragraph 21), to drive the second operating system (Figure 5, Element 522. Paragraph 26) of the second computer device (Figure 3, Element 340. Paragraph 21) to execute the cursor position marking function (Figure 5, Element 523. Paragraph 26).
Regarding Claim 17, Erickson in view of Tsai et al. in view of Neisler et al. teach the computer system of claim 15 (See Above). Erickson teaches wherein the at least one input device (Figure 3, Elements 126 and 128. Paragraph 21) comprises the keyboard (Figure 3, Element 126. Paragraph 21) and the mouse (Figure 3, Element 128. Paragraph 21), the at least one trigger operation (Figure 6, Element 620. Paragraph 34) comprises a first predetermined movement operation of the mouse (Figure 3, Element 128. Paragraph 21), and the switching device (Figure 3, Element 330. Paragraph 21) is configured to generate the at least one driving signal related to an operation of the at least one predetermined key (Paragraph 35) of the keyboard (Figure 3, Element 126. Paragraph 21) being pressed, a second predetermined movement operation of the mouse (Figure 3, Element 128. Paragraph 21) or a combination thereof to the one of the plurality of computer devices (Figure 3, Elements 320 and 340. Paragraph 21) in response to the first predetermined movement operation of the mouse (Figure 3, Element 128. Paragraph 21), to drive the corresponding operating system (Figure 5, Element 522. Paragraph 26) of the one of the plurality of computer devices (Figure 3, Elements 320 and 340. Paragraph 21) to execute the cursor position marking function (Figure 5, Element 523. Paragraph 26).
Regarding Claim 18, Erickson in view of Tsai et al. in view of Neisler et al. teach the computer system of claim 15 (See Above), wherein the one of the plurality of computer devices (Figure 3, Elements 320 and 340. Paragraph 21) enables (Figure 6, Element 610. Paragraph 34. The examiner notes that Element 610 (Select a workstation) is mislabeled in Figure 6 as Element 620.) the cursor position marking function (Figure 5, Element 523. Paragraph 26) of the corresponding operating system (Figure 5, Element 522. Paragraph 26) of the one of the plurality of computer devices (Figure 3, Elements 320 and 340. Paragraph 21) in response to an operation of the switching device (Figure 3, Element 330. Paragraph 21).
Regarding Claim 19, Erickson in view of Tsai et al. in view of Neisler et al. teach the computer system of claim 15 (See Above), wherein the switching device (Figure 3, Element 330. Paragraph 21) stores an application program (Figure 3, Element 305. Paragraph 21), and the one of the plurality of computer devices (Figure 3, Elements 320 and 340. Paragraph 21) accesses the application program through the switching device (Figure 3, Element 330. Paragraph 21), to enable (Figure 6, Element 610. Paragraph 34. The examiner notes that Element 610 (Select a workstation) is mislabeled in Figure 6 as Element 620.) the cursor position marking function (Figure 5, Element 523. Paragraph 26) of the corresponding operating system (Figure 5, Element 522. Paragraph 26) of the one of the plurality of computer devices (Figure 3, Elements 320 and 340. Paragraph 21).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW B SCHNIREL whose telephone number is (571)270-7690. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 - 6 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Boddie can be reached at 571-272-0666. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.B.S/Examiner, Art Unit 2625
/WILLIAM BODDIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2625