Appeal No. 2001-1642
Application No. 09/191,310
or fails.” (Abstract, last two lines).
It is clear from reading the abstract and the specification,
that the term “defective pixels” refers not to the pixels of the
CCD device itself, but the image pixels which reflect defects in
the ophthalmic lens being observed. See, e.g. Fig. 2, box
“Placement of Pixel(s) in Defect Categories”; see also column 3,
lines 7-9 “After making these pixel level determinations, each
defective pixel is considered for membership in a defect group.”
Hence, the term “defective pixels.”
As set forth in Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1457, 43
USPQ2d 1030, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 1997), “[u]nder 35 U.S.C. § 102,
every limitation of a claim must identically appear in a single
prior art reference for it to anticipate the claim.” “Every
element of the claimed invention must be literally present,
arranged as in the claim.” Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd.,
868 F.2d 1226, 1236, 9 USPQ2d 1913, 1920 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
As the rejection is therefore based upon an error of fact,
and the reference as relied upon by the examiner does not
determine each “defective pixel” of the CCD device, we shall
reverse it. However, we make the following additional
observations which should be addressed upon further prosecution.
We compare the claimed method and the prior art Ebel as
follows. The invention of claim 1 recites a method of detecting
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007