Appeal No. 2002-0886
Application No. 08/674,937
OPINION
With full consideration being given the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner's rejection and the arguments of the
Appellant and the Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we
reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 12-24 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).
Appellant argues that Sone does not teach or suggest
additional fonts in a plurality of fonts and storing the
additional fonts in a way that minimize or eliminate unused
space. Appellant further argues that Sone does not teach or
suggest making the additional fonts available to the apparatus
when the key is associated with the apparatus, and making only
the data available to the apparatus when the key is not
associated with the apparatus. See pages 6-8 of the brief and
pages 2 and 3 of the reply brief.
55
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007