Appeal No. 94-3636
Application 07/889,660
OPINION
We reverse.
After withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the claims stand grouped in two
groups: (1) claims 1, 5, and 8-14; and (2) dependent claims 6-7. Claim 1 is taken as a representative
claim of the first group. The examiner's statement that appellants have failed to present arguments
in support of the separate groups (Examiner's Answer, page 2) is in error for the reasons stated by
appellants (Reply Brief, page 3).
"Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference discloses, expressly or under
principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention." RCA Corp. v. Applied
Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Appellants argue (Brief, page 8) that Kita does not teach a "pen-based computer system"
(claim 1) with an input pointer or a "screen display coupled . . . which registers the position of a
stylus" (claim 11). We agree with the examiner's finding that Kita's disclosure of input through a
"tablet means" (column 3, line 61) meets these limitations since the puck of a tablet input device is
broadly considered to be a pointer, pen or stylus. Claim 1 does not define "pen-based" to require a
touch sensitive device or to require only a pen input. The alternative language "written or selected"
in claim 1 permits the search string to be selected with the pointer and does not require that search
string be written on the display. Claim 11 does not expressly require the stylus to write on the screen
display; the display could register the position of the puck on the tablet.
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007