Appeal No. 2002-1064 Page 8
Application No. 09/126,385
Maron further provides (column 8, lines 10-15) that "the system is intended for
coupling to actual X-ray scanners in order to enhance the effectiveness of such
scanners during their normal operation. Such coupling is achieved by connecting the
video output of the X-ray scanner to the video input of the simulator."
In our view, claim 19 is anticipated3 by Maron when Maron's system for
simulating X-ray scanners is coupled to an actual X-ray scanner as taught by Maron in
order to enhance the effectiveness of such actual X-ray scanners during their normal
operation. Claim 19 is readable on4 Maron as follows: The method of training baggage
screening system operators (Maron's system for simulating X-ray scanners is used as a
teaching aid for baggage screening systems at airports) which comprises providing a
baggage screening system (Maron's actual X-ray scanner) including a monitor (the
graphics terminal/display monitor of Maron's system for simulating X-ray scanners) and
further providing means for projecting simulated images of contraband onto said monitor
(Maron's computer displays hazardous simulated images of firearms and the like).
3 To support a rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), it must be shown that each element
of the claim is found, either expressly described or under principles of inherency, in a single prior art
reference. See Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983),
cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
4 The inquiry as to whether a reference anticipates a claim must focus on what subject matter is
encompassed by the claim and what subject matter is described by the reference. As set forth by the
court in Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., supra, it is only necessary for the claims to "'read on' something
disclosed in the reference, i.e., all limitations of the claim are found in the reference, or 'fully met' by it."
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007