Appeal No. 2006-1782
Application No. 09/879,698
Anticipation is established when a single prior art reference discloses expressly or under
the principles of inherency each and every limitation of the claimed invention. Atlas Powder Co.
v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1946 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30
F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
We agree with the examiner’s findings (answer, pages 3 through 5) that Breed discloses
apparatus for detecting an approaching emergency vehicle (e.g., a fire engine) from a secondary
vehicle (paragraph [0059]), at least one camera (e.g., a HDRC camera) mounted on the
secondary vehicle (paragraphs [0131], [0161], [0186]-[0190]), an on-chip electronic pan/tilt and
zoom (paragraph [0187]), and a display surface 140, 145 mounted inside the secondary vehicle
(Figure 11; paragraphs [0132]-[0134], [0220]-[0222]) for displaying video image data from the
at least one camera as an icon representation of an identified vehicle (paragraphs [0220]-[0222].
Turning first to the anticipation rejection of claim 1, the examiner contends (answer, page
4) that the mechanical motors for a laser radar device used by Breed (paragraph [0169]) are
somehow connected to the on-chip electronic pan/tilt and zoom. Appellants argue (brief, page 6)
that the motors are not used for a camera, and that Breed does not disclose a motor for the on-
chip electronic pan/tilt and zoom. We agree with appellants’ argument. The system described
by Breed does not use a motor in connection with the on-chip electronic pan/tilt and zoom. For
this reason, the anticipation rejection of claims 1 through 3, 8 and 10 through 13 is reversed.
Turning next to the anticipation rejection of claims 14 and 16 through 21, appellants
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007