Ex Parte Simske - Page 4

                Appeal 2007-0245                                                                              
                Application 10/238,126                                                                        
                art reference.  Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2                   
                USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987).  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., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ                      
                781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), 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.”  While all elements of the                     
                claimed invention must appear in a single reference, additional references                    
                may be used to interpret the anticipating reference and to shed light on its                  
                meaning, particularly to those skilled in the art at the relevant time.  See                  
                Studiengesellschaft Kohle v. Dart Indus., Inc., 726 F.2d 724, 726-727, 220                    
                USPQ 841, 842-843 (Fed. Cir. 1984).                                                           
                    The Examiner contends that Ayer teaches all of the limitations of                         
                independent claim 1 and relies upon the teachings of Ayer at col. 2-3 to                      
                teach the steps of analyzing, generating, and annotating the “selected                        
                images” (Answer 5).                                                                           
                    Appellant argues that Ayer does not teach “analyzing said selected                        
                images to identify associated information” and that associated information is                 
                used in “generating annotation information from at least one of said selected                 
                images using said associated information” (Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 4-6).                           
                Additionally, Appellant argues that Ayer does not teach annotating multiple                   
                selected images with the annotation information (Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 7-8).                     
                The Examiner maintains that Ayer teaches analysis of the digital map and                      
                extracting features of a map in order to match the feature to the image                       
                (Answer 8-9).   We cannot agree with the Examiner’s correlation of the                        

                                                      4                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013