Appeal No. 2001-1874
Application No. 09/072,758
Claims 1-3, 8, 9, 11-13, and 16, Section 102 rejection over Brajovic
The statement of the rejection of claims 1-3, 8, 9, 11-13, and 16 (Answer at 7)
asserts that Brajovic discloses a “light sensitive element” 12 and 30, an “integration
circuit” 60, 12, and a “continuous time processing circuit” 90, 40.
Anticipation requires the presence in a single prior art reference disclosure of
each and every element of the claimed invention, arranged as in the claim. Lindemann
Maschinenfabrik GmbH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221
USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984). We cannot sustain the rejection of claim 1 as being
anticipated by Brajovic.
Brajovic discloses a radiation sensitive control element 60, which includes a
photodiode 12. Col. 5, ll. 49-54; Fig. 2. Radiation control element 60 and local
processor 90 together make up circuit 30 of Figure 2. Col. 5, ll. 1-30. The rejection
thus contemplates that the “integration circuit” makes up part of the “light sensitive
element,” and that photodiode 12 is common to both the circuit and the element.
Instant claim 1, however, recites, inter alia, “an integration circuit coupled to the light
sensitive element,” and thus requires separate elements to perform the claimed
functions. We agree with appellant that Brajovic cannot support a finding of anticipation
with respect to the subject matter of claim 1, at least for the reason that each and every
element of the claim has not been shown as described by the reference.
The rejection of claim 1 also refers to embodiments other than that shown in
Figures 1 and 2 of the reference, and thus not to elements arranged as in the claim.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007