Appeal 2007-0337
Application 09/996,200
claim 31); Examiner’s Answer filed Mar. 21, 2005, at 4 (acknowledging
Appellant’s claim listing in the Brief as correct).
Although Appellant did not respond to the Examiner’s redrafting of
claim 31 in the Reply Brief, we nonetheless presume that Appellant’s listing
of claim 31 in the Brief is correct based on the record before us.
Anticipation Rejection
We now consider the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 10, 11, 13-
18, 25, 26, 28-32, 34, 35, and 37-39 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Thomas. Anticipation is established only when a single prior
art reference discloses, expressly or under the principles of inherency, each
and every element of a claimed invention as well as disclosing structure
which is capable of performing the recited functional limitations. RCA
Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221
USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984); W.L. Gore and Associates, Inc. v. Garlock,
Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
The Examiner has indicated how the claimed invention is deemed to
be fully met by the disclosure of Thomas (Answer 4-10). Regarding
representative claim 1,1 Appellant argues that Thomas does not disclose (1)
using plural points local to an area of an image to calculate distortion; (2)
extracting a component of the distortion; and (3) applying the extracted
component to a different area of the image as claimed (Br. 8). According to
Appellant, Thomas merely animates an undistorted object during its
enlargement, movement, or rotation. Appellant emphasizes that, unlike
1 Appellant indicates that claim 1 is representative of the group comprising
claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 16, 17, 25, 26, 31, 32, and 34 (Br. 8).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013