Appeal No. 2006-0432
Application No. 09/968,085
which will directly affect or be directly affected by or have a
bearing on the Board’s decision in the pending appeal.” It
appears to us that appellant knew or should have known about the
appeal taken in Application Serial No. 09/900,787, Appeal No.
2004-0609 (oral hearing of April 27, 2005, decision mailed May
18, 2005), the decision therein directly affecting and/or having
a bearing on the Board’s decision in the pending appeal.
Turning, first, to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), a
rejection for anticipation requires that the four corners of a
single prior art document describe every element of the claimed
invention, either expressly or inherently, such that a person of
ordinary skill in the art could practice the invention without
undue experimentation. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31
USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
It is the examiner’s view that the subject matter of claims
1-7 and 9-13 are anticipated by Levine as follows:
With regard to instant claim 1, the examiner indicates that
Levine discloses the claimed “providing a surface...” at Figure
1, element 102, 106, 110 and column 2, lines 33-53; the claimed
“storing information...” at Figure 2, elements 202, 204, 216, and
column 3, lines 41-65; the claimed “moving the marking
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007