Appeal No. 2002-0880
Application No. 09/183,214
Throughout our opinion, we make reference to the brief1 and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
Opinion
With full consideration being given the subject matter on appeal, the Examiner’s
rejections and the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, for the reasons stated
infra, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and
we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3 through 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In
addition, we affirm the Examiner's Rejection of claims 8 through 12, 14, 16 and 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Rejection of Claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can be found only if the
prior art reference discloses every element of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324,
1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and In re Lindemann Maschinenfabrik
GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485
(Fed. Cir. 1984).
Appellants argue that Winkler does not teach providing a control signal to a test
apparatus over a communication link as claimed. Appellants argue that a communica-
1 Appellants filed an appeal brief on September 10, 2001 in response to the final rejection of June
6, 2001. We note that the brief is titled “SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF ON APPEAL” however the brief is the
complete brief and we will refer to it as simply the brief.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007