Appeal No. 1999-0864 Page 15
Application No. 08/757,550
“‘[T]he main purpose of the examination, to which every
application is subjected, is to try to make sure that what
each claim defines is patentable. [T]he name of the game is
the claim ....’” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369,
47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Giles S. Rich,
The Extent of the Protection and Interpretation of
Claims--American Perspectives, 21 Int'l Rev. Indus. Prop. &
Copyright L. 497, 499, 501 (1990)). Here, claims 12-14 specify
in pertinent part the following limitations: “a circumstance
detector for detecting a quantity or brightness of light of
the main image external to the environmental image under which
a user uses the image display device; and environmental image-
changing means for varying the environmental image according
to detected light quantity or brightness of the main image
detected by said circumstance detector.” Accordingly, the
claims require, inter alia, varying an environmental image of
an image display device according to a detected brightness of
a main image thereof.
The examiner fails to show a teaching or suggestion of
the limitations in the prior art of record. As explained
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007