Appeal 2007-0058
Application 10/713,600
5. Reviewing the text in question, we find that the
diagnostic results referred to in the second sentence are
medical diagnostic results from the ultrasound
processing of patients, intended to be reviewed by a
diagnosing physician at a remote terminal. From this
paragraph, and from a careful reading of the entire
patent, we do not find in Wood a teaching of the
claimed system diagnostic information being stored in a
central location, as claimed.
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.
“In reviewing the [E]xaminer’s decision on appeal, the Board
must necessarily weigh all of the evidence and argument.” In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992).
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 Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v.
American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ
481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013