Appeal No. 2004-0429
Application 09/335,289
American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481,
485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
With respect to independent claims 1, 7, and 14, Appellants
argue at page 7 of the brief, “the claimed invention invokes ‘a
line drawing algorithm once’ to generate parameter values ‘for a
single offset line’, thereby significantly reducing the time
involved with drawing a line segment.” The Examiner responds in
the answer at page 5, Fukuzawa discloses, “the processing is
executed once with regard to a straight line, col. 2, lines 6-7.”
The Appellants rebut this at page 2 of the reply brief by
arguing, “[t]he Fukuzawa reference to ‘the processing’, however,
can only be interpreted in light of the text that precedes it”,
and “‘the processing’ is described in column 1 lines 42 through
column 2 line 5.” The Appellants go on to point out, “the
Fukuzawa description clearly conveys that a line drawing
algorithm is invoked twice for each scan line.”
We agree with Appellants’ position. Fukuzawa teaches
invoking a line drawing algorithm twice and the independent
claims all require that the line drawing algorithm only be
invoked once. The Examiner has not met the initial burden of
establishing a prima facie case of anticipation.
Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007