Appeal No. 2002-1313 Page 7
Application No. 09/282,590
require displaying a 3D representation of a modifier and changing the appearance of a
3D object by merely applying the modifier thereto.
“[H]aving ascertained exactly what subject matter is being claimed, the next
inquiry must be into whether such subject matter is novel.” In re Wilder, 429 F2d 447,
450, 166 USPQ 545, 548 (CCPA 1970). “[A]nticipation is a question of fact.” Hyatt,
211 F.3d at 1371, 54 USPQ2d at 1667 (citing Bischoff v. Wethered, 76 U.S. (9 Wall.)
812, 814-15 (1869); In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431
(Fed. Cir. 1997). “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art
reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051,
1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (citing Structural Rubber Prods. Co. v. Park Rubber Co., 749 F.2d
707, 715, 223 USPQ 1264, 1270 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.,
722 F.2d 1542, 1548, 220 USPQ 193, 198 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark
Corp., 713 F.2d760, 771, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). "[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).
Here, the examiner equates the claimed 3D representation of a modifier to
Seidl’s bounding box, which is applied to an object by selecting the object. Specifically,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007