Appeal No. 97-3665
Application 08/280,039
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, either expressly or under the principles
of inherency, each and every element of the claimed invention.
In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 707, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed.
Cir. 1990); RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730
F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed.Cir. 1984). See also
In re
King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986);
Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick
Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
The prior art reference must either expressly or inherently
describe each and every limitation in a claim. Verdegaal
Bros. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053
(Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987).
All of the appellant’s claims on appeal require the
delivery of data to a user terminal on a communications
network. According to the appellant (Br. at page 11),
Stringer discloses neither a method nor system for delivering
data over a “communications network” and thus cannot
anticipate the appellant’s claimed invention. The argument is
without merit.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007