Ex Parte Broussard - Page 5

                Appeal 2007-0279                                                                               
                Application 10/042,079                                                                         
                program (110).2  Particularly, as depicted in figure 2, Krishna uses                           
                declarations and interfaces of the first object-oriented software program to                   
                generate an interface or library stubs (220) for compiling codes in a second                   
                object-oriented software program.  However, Krishna teaches excluding the                      
                executable statements of the first object-oriented software while generating                   
                the library stubs.  (Page 2, paragraph [0025]).                                                

                                           PRINCIPLES OF LAW                                                   
                                            1.     ANTICIPATION                                                
                      It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can be found 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).                                                      
                      In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a single prior art reference                  
                that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a claim                     
                invalidates that claim by anticipation.  Perricone v. Medicis Pharmaceutical                   
                Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375-76, 77 USPQ2d 1321, 1325-26 (Fed. Cir. 2005),                       
                citing Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Johnson & Johnson Orthopaedics, Inc.,                        
                976 F.2d 1559, 1565, 24 USPQ2d 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1992).  Anticipation                      
                of a patent claim requires a finding that the claim at issue “reads on” a prior                
                art reference.  Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1346, 51                       
                USPQ2d 1943, 1945 (Fed Cir. 1999) (“In other words, if granting patent                         
                                                                                                              
                2 We note in the first sentence of the abstract, Krishna specifically indicates                
                that the first software program is capable of being referenced by the second                   
                software program.  (Abstract, ll. 1-2).                                                        
                                                      5                                                        

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013