Appeal No. 2003-1617 Page 5
Application No. 09/144,240
motion information pertaining to the image sequence wherein the stored motion
information is encoded at a different frame rate.
2. Anticipation Determination
"Having construed the claim limitations at issue, we now compare the claims to
the prior art to determine if the prior art anticipates those claims." In re Cruciferous
Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1349, 64 USPQ2d 1202, 1206 (Fed. Cir. 2002). "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); Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d760, 771,
218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Furthermore, "[t]o establish inherency, the
extrinsic evidence 'must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily
present in the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by
persons of ordinary skill.'" In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745, 49 USPQ2d 1949, 1950-
51 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (quoting Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264,
1268, 20 USPQ2d 1746, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 1991)) "Inherency . . . may not be established
by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007