Appeal No. 2005-0116
Application No. 10/109,390
484 U.S. 827 (1987). A prior art reference anticipates the subject matter of a claim
when the reference discloses every feature of the claimed invention, either explicitly or
inherently (see Hazani v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 126 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1358,
1361 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d
1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984)); however, the law of anticipation
does not require that the reference teach what the appellants are claiming, but only that
the claims on appeal "read on" something disclosed in the reference (see Kalman v.
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert.
denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984)). Further, as pointed out by our reviewing court, we must
first determine the scope of the claim. "[T]he name of the game is the claim." In re
Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362,1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Therefore,
we look to the limitations set forth in independent claim 1. Claim 1 sets forth
outputting said first black reference signal, said second black reference
signal, and said pixel signal and using both said first black reference signal
and said second black reference signal to modify said pixel signal.
Therefore, Fossum must teach the use of both a first and second black reference signal.
The examiner maintains that Fossum teaches “a second black reference signal
(fixed pattern noise) following the completion of said integration period (see Col. 5, lines
20-23).” (Answer at page 3.) Appellants argue that the measuring of this difference in
threshold voltages between output transistors is not the same as the claimed “capturing
a second black reference signal following completion of said integration period” and
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007