Appeal 2007-1297
Application 10/082,235
indications for association with the incident ticket, and a detail of the alert
indications associated with the incident.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art reference to show
unpatentability:
Curtis US 6,208,720 B1 Mar. 27, 2001
Claims 1, 2, 4-10, and 12-26, all of the appealed claims, stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being anticipated by Curtis.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner,
reference is made to the Briefs and Answer for the respective details.
ISSUE
Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), does Curtis have a disclosure which
anticipates the invention set forth in claims 1, 2, 4-10, and 12-26?
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
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.,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013