Appeal No. 95-1661
Application 07/976,913
Claims 1 to 9 and 18 to 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
OPINION
Succinctly stated, the examiner’s position at pages 4 and 7
of the answer indicates that the examiner considers the above-
noted portions of claims 1 and 18 to have been taught by the
reference. For his part, appellant asserts at pages 5 and 9 of
the brief that the above-noted pertinent portions of independent
claims 1 and 18 are not taught by the reference relied upon.
Inasmuch as we generally agree with appellant’s assertions
with respect to claims 1 and 18, we reverse the outstanding
rejection of independent claims 1 and 18 and, therefore, their
respective dependent claims.
As a study of the present application reveals, appellant’s
current invention is in essence an improvement over that which
has been disclosed in Jamali. The pertinent portion of this
reference pertaining to the above quoted portions of independent
claims 1 and 18 is, as asserted by the examiner, column 5 of
Jamali’s patent. At lines 30 through 47 of this column, the
following is taught:
The LCU via instructions provided by display 153
requests that the operator indicate with use of a
digitizing wand 194 associated with the digitizing
tablet the position, relative to the registered corner
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007