Appeal No. 96-3128
Application 08/246,723
limitations of claims 1, 2, 4 and 14, and thereby the claims
are not anticipated by Peppers.
Claims 3, 5 through 13 and 15 through 27 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Peppers in
view of Paek. As we pointed out above, these claims require
that each of said plurality of said optical correlation
operation means detects a respective portion of said optical
pattern displayed by said input information displaying means.
The Examiner is arguing that Peppers teaches this limitation.
As point out above, we find that Peppers teaches detecting the
entire optical pattern displayed, and thereby fails to teach
the Appellant's claimed limitation. Upon a review of Paek, we
find that Paek fails to teach this limitation as well.
Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner
rejecting claims 1 through 27 is reversed.
REVERSED
)
STANLEY M. URYNOWICZ, JR. )
Administrative Patent Judge )
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007