Appeal No. 2006-1054
Application No. 09/739,619
would naturally move toward the camera when the user moves in the direction of the
camera. The arrow or text described by Hiroaki might not indicate to the user that the
user should turn his or her head and fix his or her eyes on the camera. However,
instant claim 1 does not require such.
The law of anticipation does not require that a reference “teach” what an
applicant’s disclosure teaches. Assuming that a reference is properly “prior art,” it is
only necessary that the claims “read on” something disclosed in the reference, i.e., all
limitations of the claim are found in the reference, or “fully met” by it. Kalman v.
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983). We
are unconvinced that Hiroaki fails to disclose all the structures that are required by
instant claim 1. We sustain the § 102 rejection of claim 1, and of depending claim 2 not
separately argued.
Turning to the § 103 rejections and claims 3, 12, and 18, appellants argue in the
Brief that Ota fails to teach or suggest any ability of the telephone terminal to determine
whether the telephone terminal is in use, according to a voice input signal. The
argument is further refined in the Reply Brief.
Representative claim 3 recites “control means for controlling indicating means3 in
response to a result of whether the picture-phone is in use or not according to a voice
3 The claim should recite “said” indicating means, as claim 3 depends from claim 2, which sets
forth the “indicating means.”
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007