Appeal No. 95-4373
Application 07/917,108
have possession at the time of the filing date of the applica-
tion. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 10 through 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
The Examiner further argues that claim 12 recites "trans-
mitting the prepared image data" which is not supported in the
original disclosure. However, we note that claim 12 was amended
so the claim does not recite this limitation. Therefore, this
argument is moot.
We now turn to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102. After a
careful review of the evidence before us, we do not agree with
the Examiner that claims 10 through 12 and 15 through 19 are
anticipated by the applied references.
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can
be found only if the prior art reference discloses every element
of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136,
138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v.
American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481,
485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Appellant argues on page 12 of the brief that Tzou fails to
teach Appellant's claimed invention of having two different
threshold values which alternate with one another from one
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007