Appeal No. 2002-1689
Application No. 08/796,285 Page 5
plurality of first transmitted signals, but rather that each
decoder has two inputs and three outputs. In addition, we agree
with appellant that page 28, line 9 et seq. of the specification
defines the decoder system of figure 17 as a multiple axis
decoding system that uses stereo decoders. We therefore find
claim 30 to be definite, and accordingly reverse the rejection of
claims 30-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
We turn next to the rejection of claim 30 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Embree. .To anticipate a claim, a
prior art reference must disclose every limitation of the claimed
invention, either explicitly or inherently. In re Schreiber, 128
F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The
examiner (answer, page 4) relies upon 406 of Embree as the first
decoder, 448 of Embree as the second decoder, and additionally
relies upon figure 6 and the abstract of Embree. Appellant
asserts (brief, page 6) that claim 30 recites that each decoder
provides "a greater number of outputs than number of inputs."
The examiner argues (answer, page 5) that “[i]n response to
Appellant’s argument that the references fail to show certain
features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features
upon which applicant relies (i.e., claim 30 calls for surround
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007