Ex Parte Bright et al - Page 9



                 Appeal No. 2005-2338                                                                                 
                 Application No. 09/754,001                                                                           

                 which requires the identity of the user be apparent to the service provider.  The                    
                 claims require that the request include the user/subscriber identifier; whether or                   
                 not the service provider can directly interpret the identifier is not addressed in the               
                 claims.   We find that Teper, in column 9, lines 50-55, discusses the initial                        
                 communication with a service provider when the user “attempts to use the SP                          
                 [service provider’s] service,” we consider an attempt to use a service to be a                       
                 request.  Teper teaches that this transmission includes a negotiate message                          
                 which includes the user’s unique ID.  Thus, we find that Teper teaches a request                     
                 which includes a unique user/subscriber identifier as claimed.                                       
                        Lastly, on page 8 of the brief appellants state that:                                         
                               The law is also well settled that if there was anticipation, there                     
                        should have been symmetry with infringement, “[t]hat which infringes if                       
                        later, anticipates if earlier”, see e.g. Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713                  
                        F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert denied, 465, U.S.                          
                        1026 (1984).  In other words, if Teper, in particular the cited passages                      
                        have taught an element that anticipated the required element of claim 1,                      
                        then Appellants should be able to find Teper, in particular, the cited                        
                        passage infringing, had Teper been later than the application on appeal.                      
                               However, no such infringement can be found in the cited passage.                       
                               As Appellants has explained in a prior response, an infringing                         
                        method must employ a GUID that uniquely identifies a user across all                          
                        systems, all services, all communities and so forth.  Since, Teper’s unique                   
                        identifier is merely unique within Teper’s community, Teper does not                          
                        infringe on Appellants’ claim.                                                                

                        In response the examiner states “infringement is beyond the scope of                          
                 examination.”                                                                                        
                        We concur with the examiner.  Initially, we find no quotation in Kalman v.                    
                 Kimberly-Clark Corp. which states “that which infringes if later, anticipates if                     


                                                          9                                                           



Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007