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