Appeal 2006-3247
Application 10/345,055
into usable electrical signals." (Specification 21.) Giving claim 24 the
broadest, reasonable construction in view of the specification, we agree with
the Examiner that the limitation merely requires an illumination system that
delivers light to the surface of a specimen and a detection system that
collects the scattered light from the surface and coverts the light into usable
electrical signals.
V. ANTICIPATION DETERMINATION
"Having construed the claim limitations at issue, we now compare the
claim[ ] to the prior art to determine if the prior art anticipates th[e] claim[
]." In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1349, 64 USPQ2d 1202,
1206 (Fed. Cir. 2002). "[A]nticipation is a question of fact." Hyatt, 211
F.3d at 1371, 54 USPQ2d at 1667 (citing Bischoff v. Wethered, 76 U.S. (9
Wall.) 812, 814-15 (1869); In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44
USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). "A reference anticipates a claim if it
discloses the claimed invention 'such that a skilled artisan could take its
teachings in combination with his own knowledge of the particular art and
be in possession of the invention.'" In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152, 36
USPQ2d 1697, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (quoting In re LeGrice, 301 F.2d 929,
936, 133 USPQ 365, 372 (CCPA 1962)).
Here, we find that Wack "relates to a system that may be configured
to determine at least two properties of a specimen." (Col. 3, ll. 4-5.) "The
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013