Appeal 2007-1120
Application 09/747,219
document that may be displayed and edited (Abstract; col. 1, ll. 52 to 56;
col. 2, ll. 11 to 18; col. 4, ll. 8 to 14). The encoded mark includes
characteristic information (e.g., the author1 of the printed document) (col. 1,
l. 36; col. 2, l. 61). The encoded mark in Seder also indexes data (col. 2, ll.
56 to 59; col. 6, ll. 29 to 44), and stores the latest revision number of the
electronic version of the printed document (col. 7, ll. 59 to 66). Seder is
silent as to assigning “an inventory code” to an electronic file undergoing
encoding “based on whether the electronic file already exists in the system”
or is “a copy of an existing electronic file.”
Van Huben was cited by the Examiner for a description of software
procedures that are “library-specific” (Answer 8).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Anticipation is established when a single prior art reference discloses
expressly or under the principles of inherency each and every limitation of
the claimed invention. Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342,
1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1946 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475,
1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The Examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case
of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444
(Fed. Cir. 1992). The Examiner’s articulated reasoning in the rejection must
possess a rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed.
Cir. 2006).
1 Appellant’s disclosure lists an author as characteristic information
(Specification 6).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013