Appeal No. 1997-0809
Application 08/033,599
OPINION
35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
"Anticipation is established only when a single prior
art reference discloses, expressly or under principles of
inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention."
RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d
1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
We address only the limitations that are argued. See
37 CFR § 1.192(c)(8)(iii) (1995) (the argument shall specify
the errors "including any specific limitations in the
rejected claims which are not described in the prior art
relied upon in the rejection"). Thus, although we find no
express mention in Jolissaint of the terms "packet switching
nodes," "frames," "major vectors . . . including a plurality
of subvectors," or "virtual circuit segments," these
limitations are not argued in connection with the
anticipation rejection and are not addressed. Cf. In re
Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391, 21 USPQ2d 1281,
1285 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("It is not the function of this court
to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an
appellant, looking for nonobvious distinctions over the
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007