Appeal No. 1997-2055
Application No. 08/175,873
by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will affirm the anticipation rejection of claim 1
over Haynes, and we will reverse the anticipation rejection of
claim 2 over Haynes, the anticipation rejection of claims 1
through 3 over Hullot, and the obviousness rejection of claims
4 through 7 over Hullot in view of Priven.
"It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102
can be found only if the prior art reference discloses every
element of the claim." In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231
USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See also Lindemann
Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d
1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Claim 1
recites providing an observable object which responds to a
plurality of abstract events. The examiner identifies Haynes'
placing the note in the basket as being the abstract event.
However, placing the note in the basket is only a single
event, and the examiner has not indicated any additional
events which would satisfy the claim language of "a
predetermined plurality."
Further, claim 1 requires executing each of two action
objects within an action slot container object in response to
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007