Appeal No. 2005-2119
Application No. 10/103,063
second sensors, in part, because they do not have a functional
relationship to a controller as claimed. Appellant further states:
It is no surprise that there is no correlation between the
colors used at different repair shops in the Corrigan
reference because an individual repairing a vehicle at one
repair shop using a color sensor does not need paint color
information from an individual using another sensor at a
different repair shop for purposes of repairing a completely
different vehicle. There is nothing in the Corrigan reference
that corresponds to the claimed functional relationship
between a controller and first and second sensors to ensure
a color match between paints applied at different painting
stations. Therefore, at least the second sensor is missing from
the reference.
(Brief, pp. 6-7).
In order for a claimed invention to be anticipated under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102, all of the elements of the claim must be found in one reference.
Scripps Clinic & Research Found. v. Genentech Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576,
18 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
We agree with Appellant that Corrigan does not anticipate the
claimed subject matter because it does not provide a disclosure
sufficiently specific to direct one skilled in the art to the claimed
invention. The system of claims 1 and 14 requires a first sensor that
provides an indication of a color of paint applied to a first portion of the
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007