Appeal No. 1997-2895
Application 08/280,341
rejection as being anticipated by Stefik.
It is well established that a prior art reference
anticipates the subject of a claim when the reference
discloses every feature of the claimed invention, either
explicitly or inherently (see Hazani v. Int'l Trade Comm'n,
126 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1358, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and
RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d
1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).
We first take the independent claim 1. The Examiner
asserts that Stefik discloses the claimed method [answer, page
3]. Appellant argues [brief, pages 6 to 9 and reply brief,
pages 1 to 5] that Stefik does not anticipate claim 1.
Moreover, Appellant advocates that Stefik is not even related
to the same problem Appellant is trying to solve.
We agree with Appellant's position. In Stefik, all
workstations have the same status, and any one workstation can
initiate a change in the data being displayed on its screen.
That workstation locally, or some central control, can put a
notification on the network about the data change. The other
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007