Appeal No. 1997-2896
Application 08/340,561
Having determined the scope of the claims 1 and 18, we
next turn to the rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. §
102 as being unpatentable over Memarzadeh. Anticipation is
established only when a single prior art reference discloses,
expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and every
element of a claimed invention as well as disclosing structure
which is capable of performing the recited functional
limitations. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys. Inc., 730
F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert.
dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W. L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v.
Garlock Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed.
Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
We find that the Examiner has failed to show that each
limitation of claim 1 is anticipated by the prior art. We
find that Memarzadeh teaches determining data points related
to the path of the stylus, these points are then interpreted
as line segments, column 4, lines 17 through 20. The pixels
have designated active and passive areas. These areas and the
interpreted line segments are then used to determine which
pixels are activated to display the path of the stylus, column
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007