Appeal 2007-0597
Application 10/423,523
PRINCIPLES OF LAW (1)
Anticipation is established when a single prior art reference discloses
expressly or under the principles of inherency each and every limitation of
the claimed invention. Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342,
1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1946 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475,
1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Obviousness is determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole and
the relative persuasiveness of the arguments. In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038,
1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468,
1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
ANALYSIS (1)
Since each of the low-resolution cameras in Hunter lacks “a plurality
of image sensing regions,” and each of the high-resolution cameras is not
associated with “a set of the plurality of image sensing regions,” we agree
with the Appellant’s arguments concerning the lack of a prima facie case of
anticipation for claims 1 and 3 (Br. 6 to 8).
Turning to the obviousness rejection of claims 2 and 4 to 6, we agree
with the Appellant’s contention (Br. 12) that the Examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness of these claims because the
storage media teachings of Smith (paragraph 0023) fail to cure the noted
shortcoming in the teachings of Hunter.
Turning next to the obviousness rejection of claims 7 to 9, we agree
with the Appellant’s contention that the Examiner has not established a
prima facie case of obviousness of these claims because the teachings of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013