Appeal No. 1996-0774 Page 5
Application No. 08/048,117
Anticipation of Claims 1, 5, and 6
Regarding the anticipation of claims 1, 5, and 6, the
appellant argues that Fumiaki “does not teach or suggest that
ROM 16 or any of its other elements generate a reciprocal of
the total light amount.” (Appeal Br. at 7-8.) He further
argues that the reference’s disclosure “is not sufficient to
teach or suggest that ... this reciprocal is used as a digital
input to a D/A converter as claimed in claim 1.” (Reply Br.
at 5.) In response, the examiner opines, “either signal 20 is
a reciprocal of signal 13 or at some point in element 18 it
becomes reciprocal, dependent on the particular implementation
of element 18. At some point it must be reciprocal in order
to normalize signal 19.” (Examiner’s Answer at 5.)
We cannot find that Fumiaki teaches the reciprocal data
of claim 1. A prior art reference anticipates a claim only if
the reference discloses expressly or inherently every
limitation of the claim. Absence from the reference of any
claimed element negates anticipation. Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d
473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007