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). 5Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013