Appeal No. 2002-0883
Application No. 08/759,899
Throughout our opinion, we make reference to the briefs1 and
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 1-29 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 Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v.
American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481,
485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Appellants argue that Goh fails to teach or suggest a method
of switching desktops of a computer comprising the steps of
1 Appellants filed an appeal brief on June 21, 1999.
Appellants filed a reply brief on October 18, 1999. The Examiner
mailed an Office communication on December 6, 1999 which included
a rebuttal of the position set forth in the reply brief. The
Board entered an Order remanding to the Examiner on June 17, 2002
in response to the inappropriate rebuttal in the Office
communication of December 6, 1999. In response to the order, the
Examiner mailed another Office communication on July 5, 2002,
stating that the reply brief has been entered and considered and
that the communication mailed on December 6, 1999 has been
rescinded.
44
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007