Appeal No. 1998-1386 Page 17
Application No. 08/269,156
In view of the prior implementations and the appellant’s
flow charts, data structures and functions, and platform
explanation, we are not persuaded that the specification would
not enable one skilled in the art to make and use the claimed
invention without undue experimentation. The examiner has not
met his initial burden. Therefore, we reverse the rejection
of claims 1, 6-9, 12, 14, 15, 17, and 21 as non-enabled.
Next, we address the anticipation of claims 1, 6, 8, 12, 14-
17, and 21 by Fujisaki.
Anticipation of Claims 1, 6, 8, 12, 14-17, and 21 by Fujisaki
We begin by noting the following principles from Rowe v.
Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir.
1997).
A prior art reference anticipates a claim only if
the reference discloses, either expressly or
inherently, every limitation of the claim. See
Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d
628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
"[A]bsence from the reference of any claimed element
negates anticipation." Kloster Speedsteel AB v.
Crucible, Inc., 793 F.2d 1565, 1571, 230 USPQ 81, 84
(Fed. Cir. 1986).
With these in mind, we address the appellant’s argument that
“Fujisaki ... cannot be fairly considered as simultaneously
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007