Appeal No. 2003-1514 Page 8
Application No. 09/180,038
Moreover, Bay lacks image area detection means as called for in claim 11. We
do not share the examiner’s view as expressed on pages 12 and 13 of the answer that
Bay’s sensor 5 checks positions of image points that are most away from the origin of
the image by reading the various fields of the codes 20, thereby providing response for
the image area detection means recited in claim 11. While Bay’s sensor 5 reads the
information in each of the fields, Bay cannot reasonably be considered to check
positions of points on the codes, much less positions of image points which are
necessarily most away from the origin of the image in either direction. We understand
the language “checking positions of image points that are most away from the origin of
the image ...” as requiring structure for locating the outermost points of the image
furthest from an origin and for determining their position. Bay’s sensor 5, on the other
hand, appears to merely consecutively read a predetermined number of fields and
transmit the information therefrom to a controller.
For the foregoing reasons, we agree with appellants that Bay does not disclose
all the limitations of claims 11, 13 and 15 or claims 12 and 14 depending from claims 11
and 13. Thus, we shall not sustain the rejection of these claims as being anticipated4
by Bay.
4 To anticipate, every element and limitation of the claimed invention must be found in a single
prior art reference, arranged as in the claim. Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376,
1383, 58 USPQ2d 1286, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Scripps Clinic & Research Foundation v. Genentech, Inc.,
927 F.2d 1565, 1576, 18 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007