Appeal No. 2000-0359 Page 3
Application No. 08/777,393
printing the frame of laid out characters.
The prior art applied by the examiner in rejecting the
claims follows:
Hirono et al. (“Hirono”) 5,230,572 July
25, 1993.
Claims 1 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Hirono.
OPINION
After considering the record, we are persuaded that the
examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and 12. Accordingly, we
reverse.
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or
appellants in toto, we address the main point of contention
therebetween. The examiner asserts, "Hirono et al. fully
discuss their ‘spacing process’ beginning at the top of col.
13 and extending through to the end of the patent. The
Examiner particular refers Appellant to various key variables
and their definitions in Hirono et al., namely: ‘character
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007