Appeal 2007-0597
Application 10/423,523
mode until motion is detected to minimize power consumption (Abstract;
paragraph 0032).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW (2)
See Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc. supra.
During ex parte examination of an application, claims are given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In re
Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152, 36 USPQ2d 1697, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re
Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The claims on
appeal are not confined to embodiments specifically described in the
specification. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323, 75 USPQ2d
1321, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
ANALYSIS (2)
Appellant contends that Hunter does not teach “powering on” or
“powering off” the high-resolution camera during switching between the two
operating modes (Br. 9 to 11).
We disagree. As indicated supra, Hunter saves power by not
operating the high-resolution side of each camera 10 until the low-resolution
side detects motion. When motion is detected by a low-resolution camera
10, the associated high-resolution side of the camera is powered on.
Nothing in the claims on appeal limits the claims to a single low-resolution
camera as set forth in Appellant’s specifically disclosed embodiment, and
we will not confine the scope of the claims to that embodiment. Thus, we
find that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of anticipation of
claims 10, 13, 14, and 16 because Hunter teaches “powering on” and
“powering off” of the high-resolution camera.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013