Appeal No. 2006-1970
Application No. 10/014,392
Appellant’s rebuttal to the examiner’s argument initially
distinguishes reference fields from synchronization fields (reply
brief, page 7) and points out that Kuroda also lacks any
discussion of the detection of readout errors or the adjustment
of various operating parameters, such as a readout gain (reply
brief, page 8).
A rejection for anticipation requires that the four corners
of a single prior art document describe every element of the
claimed invention, either expressly or inherently, such that a
person of ordinary skill in the art could practice the invention
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 “‘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.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007