Appeal No. 2003-0670
Application No. 09/119,891
OPINION
We reverse.
With regard to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e),
anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under principles of inherency,
each and every element of a claimed invention. RCA Corp. v.
Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir.), cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984),
citing Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218
USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026
(1984).
The examiner contends that Woods discloses each and every
element of the instant claimed invention.
Independent claim 1 requires, inter alia, a step of:
obtaining data defining at least the lenticular screen
lenticule pitch, the number of views N, and the
lenticular screen position relative to the display
device pixels
An algortithm is then applied to this obtained data in order to
derive which of the N views is to be carried.
Independent claims 4 and 9 have similar recitations.
The examiner points to column 3, lines 21-56, of Wood for a
-3–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007