Appeal No. 2006-3033
Application No. 10/748,992
1991). Anticipation of a patent claim requires a finding that the claim at
issue “reads on” a prior art reference. Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190
F.3d 1342, 1346, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1945 (Fed Cir. 1999) (“In other words, if
granting patent protection on the disputed claim would allow the patentee to
exclude the public from practicing the prior art, then that claim is
anticipated, regardless of whether it also covers subject matter not in the
prior art.”) (internal citations omitted).
GROUP A, claims 1, 2, 5-7 and 16
We consider first the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-7 and 16 as
being anticipated by Manchester. Since appellant’s arguments with respect
to this rejection have treated these claims as a single group which stand or
fall together, we will consider independent claim 1 as the representative
claim for this rejection. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
Appellant asserts that Manchester does not teach an orientation
component that automatically orients display objects rendered by the display
based at least in part upon a user perspective, as claimed [brief, page 6].
The examiner disagrees [answer, page 12]. The examiner argues that
Manchester’s display image orients itself based on the user’s perspective
since the user holds the display toward him/herself in order to view the
display [id.]. Appellant further asserts in the reply brief that there is nothing
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007