Appeal 2006-3369
Application 10/224,309
person to certify compliance” (Reply Br. 7). However, during
prosecution, the Examiner may not read limitations into the claims
that are not there. The words in the claim are “one or more
reminders for the person to certify compliance”. In Gullotta,
Examiner has presented one or more reminders for the person (but
addressed to the resource provider) to certify compliance with the
policy materials. For example, there is a reminder to the
administrator for the new user’s benefit to supply that user with
access to relevant job related documents in the database. We find
that the applied prior art anticipates the claim as worded.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
On appeal, Appellant bears the burden of showing that the Examiner
has not established a legally sufficient basis for the rejection of the claims.
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can be found
only if the prior art reference discloses every element of the claim. See In re
King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013