Appeal No. 2000-0980
Application 08/763,733
us, that the evidence relied upon supports each of the rejections
made by the examiner. Accordingly, we affirm.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1, 2, 6-11, 13
and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by the
disclosure of Okada. Anticipation is established only when a
single prior art reference discloses, expressly or under the
principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed
invention as well as disclosing structure which is capable of
performing the recited functional limitations. RCA Corp. v.
Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir.); cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L.
Gore and Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554,
220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851
(1984). This rejection is argued by appellant in a first group
(claims 10, 11, 13 and 14) and a second group (claims 1, 2 and 6-
9) [brief, page 3].
The examiner’s rejection is set forth on pages 3-7 of the
examiner’s answer. With respect to the claims of the first group
as represented by claim 10, appellant argues that Okada does not
disclose the claimed feature of controlling skipping of units of
picture data based on predetermined picture size information,
corresponding to the units of pictures, contained at a user data
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007