Appeal No. 1999-0864 Page 5
Application No. 08/757,550
19-25, 28-31, and 35
We begin by noting the following principles from Rowe v.
Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir.
1997).
A prior art reference anticipates a claim only if
the reference discloses, either expressly or
inherently, every limitation of the claim. See
Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d
628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
"[A]bsence from the reference of any claimed element
negates anticipation." Kloster Speedsteel AB v.
Crucible, Inc., 793 F.2d 1565, 1571, 230 USPQ 81, 84
(Fed. Cir. 1986).
With these principles in mind, we consider the examiner’s
rejection and the appellant’s argument.
The examiner asserts, “in Yamanaka, the luminosity of the
environmental image may be adjusted to high or low in case of
enjoying a TV program or a movie, respectively, by means of an
automatic lighting controller 262, which clearly or inherently
detects the light quantity of the video data of a TV program
or a movie and in response adjusts the luminosity of the
environmental image.” (Examiner’s Answer, ¶ 11.) The
appellant argues, “[t]he automatic lighting controller 262 ...
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007