Appeal 2007-0996
Application 09/949,721
IV. ANTICIPATION ANALYSIS
"[A]nticipation of a claim under § 102 can be found only if the prior
art reference discloses every element of the claim. . . ." In re King, 801 F.2d
1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing Lindemann
Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452,
1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). "[A]bsence from the reference
of any claimed element negates anticipation." Kloster Speedsteel AB v.
Crucible, Inc., 793 F.2d 1565, 1571, 230 USPQ 81, 84 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Here, Figures 1 and 2 of Inbar respectively "show a perspective partial
cut-away illustration and a cross-sectional view of a transparency
viewer 10. . . ." (Col. 16, ll. 53-55.) "[T]ransparencies (films) 16 are held
on [a] faceplate 14" (id. ll. 58-59) of the viewer. "Liquid Crystal
Arrays (LCAs) 20 and 22 is [sic] located interior to faceplate 14." (Id. ll. 64-
66.) "A Brightness Enhancement Film (BEF) 24. . . is optionally located
behind the LCAs." (Col. 17, ll. 8-10.)
As aforementioned, the Examiner reads the claims' "image data
supplying source" on the reference's BEF. Inbar discloses the operation of
the BEF as follows.
BEF 24 preferentially accepts light from off-normal directions
and redirects them in a narrow cone around the normal. Light
from the normal direction is mostly reflected back. It should be
appreciated that this process of preferring off-axis light and
reflecting back a significant proportion of normally-incident
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013