Appeal No. 1997-4452 Application No. 08/653,978 Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being unpatentable over Hassett. Claims 1-14 and 16-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hassett in view of Kang. Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 19, mailed May 23, 1997) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 18, filed Feb. 3, 1997) and reply brief (Paper No. 20, filed Jul. 23, 1997) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst. OPINION In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the determinations which follow. 35 U.S.C. § 102 Appellant argues that the answer does not address the claim limitation with respect to “forming mezzanine outline data defining a second plot of the desired outline, upwardly scaled from the target outline data onto a mezzanine grid . . .” as it relates to a showing of anticipation. (See reply brief at pages 2-4.) We agree with appellant. The examiner maintains the rejection and uses the terms “obviousness and triviality” along with “level of 3Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007