Appeal No. 2002-1755
Application No. 09/173,286
Office and Nakatsu with regard to claims 3, 4 and 6, adding
Hibbeler with regard to claims 5 and 7. Claims 10 and 13 are
rejected under Nakatsu alone, with Microsoft Office added with
regard to claims 11 and 12. With regard to claims 14-16, the
examiner cites Nakatsu and Hibbeler and with regard to claim 18,
the examiner cites Microsoft Office and Nakatsu.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
With regard to the rejection based on 35 U.S.C. § 102(b),
while the examiner asserts that the rejection is based on the
“public use or on sale” clause of that statutory section, the
examiner has not indicated any specific public use or sale of the
claimed invention to which he refers.
Since the examiner cites a reference to Microsoft Office in
the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), we will presume that the
rejection is based on the “described in a printed publication”
portion of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), a reference must disclose,
explicitly or implicitly, every limitation of the claimed
invention. Glaxo Inc. v. Novopharm Ltd., 52 F.3d 1043, 1047, 34
USPQ2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 988 (1995).
-3–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007