Appeal No. 1997-2896
Application 08/340,561
segments overlap,” to mean that the ends of each adjacent line
segment represent the path of the stylus overlap.
Having determined the scope of claim 2, we next turn to
the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
unpatentable over Memarzadeh. We find that the Examiner has
failed to show that each of the limitations of claim 2 is
anticipated by the prior art. As stated above, we find that
Memarzadeh fails to teach drawing line segments and
overlapping the ends of each adjacent line segment as claimed.
We acknowledge that the sections of Memarzadeh addressed by
the Examiner can be construed as showing overlap of line
segments. However, we find that the scope of the claim is
such that all adjacent line segments overlap, and as
Appellants point out on page 6 of the brief there are also
examples where the line segments do not overlap. Thus, we
will not sustain the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102. Claims 4 through 17 depend upon claim 2, and,
accordingly, the rejection of these claims will not be
sustained because the additionally cited art does not cure the
noted deficiencies in the teachings of Memarzadeh.
14
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007