Appeal 2007-1203
Application 10/420,140
STATEMENT OF LAW
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a single prior art reference that
discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a claim invalidates that
claim by anticipation. Perricone v. Medicis Pharm., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375-76, 77
USPQ2d 1321, 1325-26 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co. v.
Johnson & Johnson Orthopaedics, Inc., 976 F.2d 1559, 1565, 24 USPQ2d 1321,
1326 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). Anticipation of a patent claim requires a finding that the
claim at issue “reads on” a prior art reference. Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc.,
190 F.3d 1342, 1346, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1945 (Fed Cir. 1999) (“In other words, if
granting patent protection on the disputed claim would allow the patentee to
exclude the public from practicing the prior art, then that claim is anticipated,
regardless of whether it also covers subject matter not in the prior art.”) (internal
citations omitted).
ANALYSIS
We consider the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-24 as being anticipated by
Shinohara. Since Appellant’s arguments with respect to this rejection have treated
these claims as a single group which stand or fall together, we will select claim 1
as the representative claim for this rejection because we find it is the broadest
independent claim before us. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
Appellant points out that the language of each independent claim has been
amended to recite “planar surface” to more clearly establish that the claimed angle
of incidence is formed between the viewing surface normal vector and the planar
surface of an object. Appellant argues that Shinohara explicitly teaches pixel
transparency changes are made using vertex normal vectors, and not the incident
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013