Appeal No. 1997-0412
Application No. 08/434,558
Claims 18, 20, 21, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Piliavin or More.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 31,
mailed August 19, 1996) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to appellant's Brief (Paper
No. 28, filed June 11, 1996) and Supplemental Brief (Paper No.
30, filed July 12, 1996) for appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will reverse the written description rejection of
claims 18, 20, 21, and 28, and reverse the anticipation
rejections of claims 18, 20, 21, and 28.
The examiner states (Answer, page 3) that "there is no
explicit statement in the original disclosure on how sensing
and displaying can be performed simultaneously." The examiner
further explains (Answer, pages 4-5):
Although the display and position signals might be
superimposed, this in itself does not dictate
simultaneous detection and display. For example,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007