Appeal No. 96-0974
Application 08/024,299
end of the line instead of the transmitting end, as applicant
does. . . . [T]his aspect hardly adds [a] significant
distinction, if any at all." As appellants correctly note, to
be anticipatory, a reference must satisfy every limitation of
a claim, whether or not the examiner considers it to be
"significant." Furthermore, the assertion that the limitation
fails to add a "significant" distinction over
Kohno sounds like an argument for nonobviousness under § 103,
which is out of place in a rejection for anticipation under
§ 102.
We also agree with appellants that the rejection of
claim 1 for anticipation by Kohno is unsustainable for a
number of other reasons. Claim 1 recites "means for
discovering the presence of a defective line of a cable having
a plurality of lines during a power on period by sequentially
checking each of said lines" (our emphasis). The Answer
addresses this limitation as follows (at 6):5
Appellant argues that [Kohno] does not
mention a power-on mode of operation. If Kohno
does not operate in the power-on mode, where
does he operate, in the power-off mode? If
5Answer at 6.
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007