Appeal No. 2002-1395 Page 15
Application No. 08/789,702
"The review authorized by 35 U.S.C. Section 134 is not a process whereby the
examiner . . . invite[s] the [B]oard [of Patent Appeals and Interferences] to examine the
application and resolve patentability in the first instance.” Ex parte Braeken, 54
USPQ2d 1110, 1112 (Bd.Pat.App. & Int. 1999). In an ex parte appeal, "the Board is
basically a board of review — we review . . . rejections made by patent examiners." Ex
parte Gambogi, 62 USPQ2d 1209, 1211 (Bd.Pat.App. & Int. 2001). Furthermore,
"absence 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, the examiner does not allege, let alone show, that the reference discloses
the aforementioned limitations. We will not resort to speculation as to such a possible
disclosure. Therefore, we reverse the anticipation rejection of claim 30 and of claim 31,
which depends therefrom.
Obviousness Rejection
The examiner quotes the abstract of Rostoker and "[c]ol. 2, line 44 to col. 3,
line 62" of Van Dyke. (Examiner's Answer at 7.) The appellants argue, "[n]one of the
prior art even suggests a 'template behavioral description'. None certainly combines
this with 'instantiating a template call in the behavioral description'." (Appeal Br. at 29.)
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007