Appeal No. 1999-2027
Application No. 08/452,500
the art to make and/or use the claimed invention.
Consequently, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Regarding the anticipation rejection of claim 1, "[i]t is
axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can be
found only if the prior art reference discloses every element
of the claim." In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136,
138 (Fed. Cir. 1986); See also Lindemann Maschinenfabrik
[GMBH] v. American Hoist and Derrick [Co.], 730 F.2d 1452,
1457, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Forsen does
disclose the general concepts recited in claim 1 of extracting
outermost points, calculating and segmenting the contour
lines, and matching the contour lines to a dictionary, as
indicated by the examiner (Paper No. 37, pages 6-7). However,
claim 1 includes more specific limitations that Forsen fails
to disclose.
For example, claim 1 recites that the outermost points
are "determined by extending a predetermined number of rays,
in a predetermined set of angular directions, from a common
starting point on said contour of said character, until
farther portions of the contour are intersected by said rays."
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007