Appeal 2007-1203
Application 10/420,140
ISSUES
The principal issue before us is whether Appellant has shown the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1-24 based on anticipation. More particularly, we decide
whether the following claim limitations argued by Appellant (shown in italics) read
on Shinohara in the manner asserted by the Examiner:
identifying a vector normal to a viewing surface and incident at a planar
surface of an object, the vector having an angle of incidence at the planar surface;
and
modulating a transparency of an image of the object as a function of the
angle of incidence.
FINDINGS OF FACT
At the outset, we note that the Examiner’s factual findings are not in dispute
except with respect to the specific claim limitations argued by Appellant in the
Briefs. Only those arguments actually made by Appellant have been considered in
this decision. Arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to make
in the Brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004). See also In re Watts, 354 F.3d 1362, 1368, 69 USPQ2d
1453, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Anticipation is a question of fact. Glaverbel Societe Anonyme v. Northlake
Mktg. & Supply, 45 F.3d 1550, 1554, 33 USPQ2d 1496, 1498 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
(internal citations omitted). Here, we find the argued language of the
representative claim does read on the Shinohara reference in the manner asserted
by the Examiner. Specific findings of fact appear in the Analysis infra.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013