Appeal No. 1997-2896
Application 08/340,561
Rather then reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the briefs and answers for the 1 2
respective details thereof.
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2 and 4
through 18.
Appellants assert, on pages 4 and 5 of the November 27,
1996 brief (brief), that In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 29
USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) should be applied in interpreting
claim 1. Appellants note that claim 1 recites “means
responsive to movement of the stylus across the digitizing
tablet for producing an anti-aliased ink image of the path of
the stylus on the display.” Appellants assert that this
limitation is in means- plus-function language under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, sixth paragraph, and as such, it should be interpreted
to include the structure disclosed in the specification to
perform the claimed function. On page 5 of the brief,
1 Appellants filed an Appeal brief on November 27, 1996.
Appellants filed a reply brief on April 14, 1997.
2 The Examiner mailed an examiner's answer on February 13,
1997. On May 29, 1997 the Examiner mailed a supplemental
examiner's answer stating that the reply brief has been
entered and considered.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007