Appeal No. 1997-2896
Application 08/340,561
Appellants assert that in the specification on page 10, lines
5 through 7, the means for providing the anti-aliased image
correspond to the structure for “ensuring that a one pixel
region of overlap exist[s] between successive line segments.”
Finally, Appellants assert that Memarzadeh does not disclose
that successive line segments overlap.
The Examiner asserts on page 9 of the February 13, 1997
Examiner's answer (answer) that the proper interpretation of
the limitation “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” is that the
“means” includes a digitizer, pen tablet and anti-aliasing as
disclosed in Appellants’ specification on page 8. In reliance
on this interpretation, the Examiner asserts that Memarzadeh
in column 4, teaches all of the limitations.
First, we must determine the scope of the claim. 35
U.S.C.
§ 112, sixth paragraph, is presumed to apply to a claim
element when the word “means” and an associated function are
present in the claim. Micro Chemical Inc. V. Great Plains
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007