Appeal No. 2006-3077
Application No. 09/911,912
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Farnung taken alone or in
various combinations with Kishida, Hieda or Ishikawa. Additionally, we do
not agree with the Examiner that claims 1 through 4, 17 and 18 are properly
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over various
combinations of Sugimoto, Wu and Hieda. Accordingly, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 through 18 for the reasons set forth infra.
I. Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), is the Rejection of Claims 5
through 9 as Being Anticipated By Farnung Proper?
To make a prima facie case of anticipation of a claim under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102, the Examiner must show that the prior art reference relied upon
discloses every element of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326,
231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik
GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ
481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Appellant argues that Farnung does not anticipate claim 5.
Particularly, Appellant contends that Farnung does not disclose the step of
modifying the color component of a pixel to smooth the transition between
color components of adjacent pixels. (Brief, pages 7 and 8).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013