Ex Parte Georgiev - Page 5

               Appeal 2007-0337                                                                           
               Application 09/996,200                                                                     
                                                                                                         
               claim 31); Examiner’s Answer filed Mar. 21, 2005, at 4 (acknowledging                      
               Appellant’s claim listing in the Brief as correct).                                        
                     Although Appellant did not respond to the Examiner’s redrafting of                   
               claim 31 in the Reply Brief, we nonetheless presume that Appellant’s listing               
               of claim 31 in the Brief is correct based on the record before us.                         

                                          Anticipation Rejection                                          
                     We now consider the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 10, 11, 13-                  
               18, 25, 26, 28-32, 34, 35, and 37-39 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being                     
               anticipated by Thomas.  Anticipation is established only when a single prior               
               art reference discloses, expressly or under the principles of inherency, each              
               and every element of a claimed invention as well as disclosing structure                   
               which is capable of performing the recited functional limitations.  RCA                    
               Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221                      
               USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984); W.L. Gore and Associates, Inc. v. Garlock,                 
               Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983).                             
                     The Examiner has indicated how the claimed invention is deemed to                    
               be fully met by the disclosure of Thomas (Answer 4-10).  Regarding                         
               representative claim 1,1 Appellant argues that Thomas does not disclose (1)                
               using plural points local to an area of an image to calculate distortion; (2)              
               extracting a component of the distortion; and (3) applying the extracted                   
               component to a different area of the image as claimed (Br. 8).  According to               
               Appellant, Thomas merely animates an undistorted object during its                         
               enlargement, movement, or rotation.  Appellant emphasizes that, unlike                     
                                                                                                         
               1 Appellant indicates that claim 1 is representative of the group comprising               
               claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 16, 17, 25, 26, 31, 32, and 34 (Br. 8).                               
                                                    5                                                     

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013