Appeal No. 2000-1852
Application No. 08/924,856
limited to “two cameras each placed to provide an image of the
entire area.” We decline to attribute such limited meaning to
claim 1 since, as pointed out by the Examiner, the claim does not
preclude at least two cameras which are placed to provide images
that together cover the entire moving area.
As a general principle, a rejection for anticipation under
section 102 requires that each and every limitation of the
claimed invention be disclosed in a single prior art reference.
In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed.
Cir. 1994), citing In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d
1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The inquiry as to whether a
reference anticipates a claim must focus on what subject matter
is encompassed by the claim and what subject matter is described
by the reference. As set forth by the court in Kalman v.
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed.
Cir. 1983), it is only necessary for the claims to “‘read on’
something disclosed in the reference, i.e., all limitations of
the claim are found in the reference, or ‘fully met’ by it.”
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007