Appeal No. 2006-1876
Application No. 09/877,522
without undue experimentation. See Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO
Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999);
In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed.
Cir. 1994). The inquiry as to whether a reference anticipates a
claim must focus on what subject matter is encompassed by the
claim and what subject matter is described by the reference. As
set forth by the court in Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713
F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), it is only
necessary for the claims to A>read on= something disclosed in the
prior art reference, i.e., all limitations of the claim are found
in the reference, or >fully met= by it.@ See also Atlas Powder
Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d at 1346, 51 USPQ2d at 1945 (Fed. Cir.
1999) (quoting Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d
775, 781, 227 USPQ 773, 778 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
In determining the subject matter encompassed by claim 1, we
agree with the Examiner that the claim merely requires Areceiving
software@ that facilitates communication between the camera and a
device. However, Anderson >749 does show the received software
in Figure 12 in a way that functions such as interfacing with
functions in the tool box may become available (col. 12, lines 5-
8). We also remain unconvinced by Appellants= argument that the
references say nothing about receiving software to facilitate
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007