Appeal No. 1998-0936
Application 08/369,011 Page 4
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have carefully
considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections advanced
by the examiner, and the evidence of anticipation and obviousness
relied upon by the examiner as support for the rejections. We
have, likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in
reaching our decision, appellants' arguments set forth in the
briefs along with the examiner's rationale in support of the
rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner's
answer and supplemental answer.
Upon consideration of the record before us, we reverse, for
the reasons set forth by appellants in the brief and reply brief.
We begin with the rejection of claims 1-3, 15, and 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b). As evidence of anticipation, the examiner
offers Auerbach. To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference
must disclose every limitation of the claimed invention, either
explicitly or inherently. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477,
44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The issue before us is whether Auerbach discloses
sequentially pulsing the IRLEDs to individually and sequentially
emit modulated infrared light signals to position the cursor.
Appellants assert (brief, page 7) that in Auerbach, the IRLEDs
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007