Appeal No. 2002-1158
Application No. 09/052,867
Appellants further point out that Benson not only should
not be considered as prior art, it also fails to teach the
claimed features since it shows that the 578 nm peak of the Or
signal corresponds to the color yellow instead of orange (reply
brief, page 2). Additionally, Appellants argue that based on its
broad spectral sensitivity, the Or signal of Tabei should not be
characterized as having a wavelength of about 580 nm and even so,
the peak is more properly characterized as yellow (reply brief,
page 3).
A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that
the four corners of a single prior art document describe every
element of the claimed invention, either expressly or inherently,
such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could practice
the invention without undue experimentation. See Atlas Powder
Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947
(Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d
1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
After a review of Tabei, we agree with Appellants’ assertion
that the third signal “Or” is not representing the color orange.
Tabei relates to a solid state image pick up device which
improves color reproduction wherein the color signal obtained by
using color filters of complementary colors to red, green and
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007