Appeal No. 1997-0412
Application No. 08/434,558
different times) interrupts the display signals, and the
invention avoids such interruption, the positioning signals
must occur at the same time as the display.
The portions referenced by the examiner (Answer, page 4),
i.e. that the two types of signals are mixed so as not to
cause interference (page 12, lines 4-7) and that the
positioning signals are of high frequency and small magnitude
so as not to interfere with the driving signals (page 19,
lines 16-18), further evidence that the superimposition of the
two signals refers to simultaneous displaying and sensing. It
is unclear to us how the signals could be mixed without
occurring simultaneously or how the sensing signals would
normally interfere with the driving signals if they were not
occurring simultaneously. Accordingly, we find that although
the term "simultaneous" is not used in the specification,
appellant has adequate written description for simultaneously
sensing and displaying.
As to the alleged anticipation of claims 18 and 20 by
Rympalski, "[i]t is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim
under §102 can be found only if the prior art reference
discloses every element of the claim." In re King, 801 F.2d
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007