Ex Parte LEE - Page 5




            Appeal No. 2002-1996                                                          Page 5              
            Application No. 09/086,312                                                                        


                   Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as                    
            anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,579,029 ("Arai") or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C.         
            § 103(a) as obvious over Arai.                                                                    


                                                  OPINION                                                     
                   Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or the appellant in toto, we           
            address the main point of contention therebetween.  The examiner asserts, "[i]n                   
            column 3, lines 14-28, Arai et al. discloses setting of display parameters at the factory         
            before shipping."  (Examiner's Answer at 6.)  The appellant argues, "Arai et al. '029             
            does not disclose or suggest such a method or apparatus wherein a variable range of a             
            reference value is determined when the display is fabricated in the factory, and wherein          
            that variable range is then set in the second step or function performed by the method            
            and apparatus, respectively."  (Appeal Br. at 8.)                                                 


                   We begin with the anticipation rejection.  "A claim is anticipated only if each and        
            every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described,       
            in a single prior art reference."  Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628,          
            631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (citing Structural Rubber Prods. Co. v.                 
            Park Rubber Co., 749 F.2d 707, 715, 223 USPQ 1264, 1270 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Connell                 
            v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548, 220 USPQ 193, 198 (Fed. Cir. 1983);                 








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007