Appeal No. 2006-1448
Application No. 10/444,868
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference discloses, expressly
or under the principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention as well
as disclosing structure which is capable of performing the recited functional limitations.
RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388
(Fed. Cir.); cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L. Gore and Associates, Inc. v.
Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469
U.S. 851 (1984). The examiner has indicated how the claimed invention is deemed to be
fully met by the disclosure of Strnatka [answer, pages 3-12]. Appellants argue that Strnatka
fails to disclose or suggest that the at least one image after processing is derived from an area
of the image before processing that corresponds to said selected at least one area of the whole
image display area as recited in independent claims 1, 11 and 16, or that the at least one
image after processing is derived from the area of said image before processing that
corresponds to the area of the whole image display area identified to display the
corresponding image after processing as recited in independent claims 9, 14 and 19 [brief,
page 3]. With respect to claims 9, 14 and 19, appellants additionally argue that the examiner
has failed to give appropriate meaning to the term “whole masked area” as that term is
defined in the specification [brief, pages 5-6]. The examiner responds that the claimed
invention reads on Strnatka because appellants have failed to define what is meant by before
processing and after processing. The examiner reiterates that the display of elements 30 and
34 in Strnatka discloses the claimed before and after processing [answer, pages 12-14]. With
respect to claims 9, 14 and 19, the examiner additionally responds that the definition of
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007