Appeal No. 1999-2337
Application 08/655,257
and 18 are anticipated by the applied reference, Kuga.
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).
Appellants argue on pages 7 and 8 of the Brief and on
pages 4 through 6 of the Reply Brief that Kuga does not teach
the Appellants’ claim limitations as required under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102.
In particular, Appellants argue that Kuga does not teach a
“planar display” that “produce[s] said three-dimensional
image” or a “sequence of three-dimensional images” as recited
in independent claims 1 and 2. Appellants further argue that
Kuga does not teach the steps of “driving said planar display”
to “produce said three-dimensional image” or “produce a
sequence of three-dimensional images” as recited in
independent claims 17 and 18.
On page 4 of the Answer, the Examiner states that Kuga
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007