Appeal No. 96-1119
Application 07/690,176
computer is not the same as a claim directed to a computer
program per se. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of the
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
We now consider the rejection of claims 2, 4, 6 and 8
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by the disclosures of
Kneib or Fowler. Anticipation is established only when a
single prior art reference discloses, expressly or under the
principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed
invention as well as disclosing structure which is capable of
performing the recited functional limitations. RCA Corp. v.
Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir.); cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984);
W.L. Gore and Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540,
1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469
U.S. 851 (1984).
With respect to the rejection of claims 2, 4 and 6,
the examiner states that “Kneib does not explicitly disclose
the computer program shown in Figs. 5 through 182, but this
feature is inherent in Kneib because both the Application and
the Kneib reference perform the same function. Therefore, the
equivalent of the program listed in Figs. 5 through 182 must
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007