Appeal No. 1999-2040
Application No. 08/475,023 Page 5
result in the performance of the questioned function,
it seems to be well settled that the disclosure should
be regarded as sufficient.
Thus, a prior art reference may anticipate when the claim
limitation or limitations not expressly found in that reference
are nonetheless inherent in it. See In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d at
581, 212 USPQ at 326; Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. ,
814 F.2d 628, 630, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Under
the principles of inherency, if the prior art necessarily
functions in accordance with, or includes, the claimed
limitations, it anticipates. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324,
1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appellants assert (brief, page 6) that "[r]ather than being
concerned with the elimination of artifacts that result from
combinations of colors, such as blooming, the Spaulding et al
patent is directed to the mapping of colors from one color gamut
into those of a different gamut." With regard to claim 1,
appellants assert (id.) that Spaulding does not meet the recited
step of detecting whether a nominal color for one or more objects
in an image is comprised of plural components, because the color
matching of Spaulding technique of Spaulding is not concerned
with whether a given color is comprised of a single component or
multiple components. Appellants further assert (brief, pages 7
and 8) that the equation 1<M<N is not met because in Spaulding
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007