Appeal No. 2002-0137
Application 09/069,765
III. Whether the Rejection of Claims 15-17 Under
35 U.S.C. § 102 is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the disclosure of Weaver does not fully meet the invention
as recited in claims 15-17. Accordingly, we reverse.
With respect to independent claim 15 that is representative
of claims 15-17, we find that the Examiner has not addressed the
meaning of the limitation in Appellants’ claim 15 that requires a
“function for comparing.” See the discussion at Section I above.
It would be improper to rely on speculative assumptions regarding
the meaning of claim 15 and then base a rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 102 on these assumptions. See In re Steele, 305 F.2d
859, 862, 134 USPQ 292, 295 (CCPA 1962). For this reason alone,
we find that the Examiner has not met the initial burden of
establishing a prima facie case of anticipation with respect to
the rejection based on Weaver.
Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007