Appeal No. 2003-2086
Application 09/089,290
Anticipation is only established when a single prior
art reference discloses every limitation of the claimed
invention, either explicitly or inherently. Glaxo Inc. v.
Novopharm Ltd., 52 F.3d 1043, 1047, 34 USPQ2d 1565, 1567 (Fed.
Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 988 (1995). The examiner has made
findings (final rejection, page 3) that Civanlar discloses all of
the limitations of claim 1. Appellants argue (brief, page 3)
that “Civanlar item 401 is a partitioned buffer containing
plural images of varying resolution but which are treated as a
single image by standard MPEG decoder 402 and decoded as such
(column 11, lines 50-60).” Stated differently, “MPEG decoder 402
does not change decoding resolution during its decoding as
required by claim 1" (brief, page 3).
In response to appellants’ arguments, the examiner
states (answer, page 4) that:
. . . it is noted that the features upon
which applicant relies (i.e., [MPEG decoder
402 does not] change decoding resolution
during its decoding) are not recited in the
rejected claim(s). Although the claims are
interpreted in light of the specification,
limitations from the specification are not
read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns,
988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir.
1993).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007