Appeal No. 2002-1047
Application 09/083,174
the answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner’s rejections and the arguments of Appellants
and the Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 9, and 11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 and we reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2
through 8, 10 and 12 through 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can
be found only if the prior art reference discloses every element
of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136,
138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v.
American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481,
485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
anticipated by Matsugu. Appellants argue that Matsugu does not
teach or suggest a method of producing images in a virtual space
comprising the steps of detecting light beams directed toward
virtual visual points, wherein detection is being effected by an
image pickup device in a plurality of positions lying on a
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007