Appeal No. 2000-0146 Page 7
Application No. 08/979,069
of a second bounding rectangle for the selected block of text
at a destination location.
“[H]aving ascertained exactly what subject matter is
being claimed, the next inquiry must be into whether such
subject matter is novel.” Wilder, 429 F.2d at 450, 166 USPQ
at 548. “A claim is anticipated only if each and every
element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly
or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.”
Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2
USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (citing Structural Rubber
Prods. Co. v. Park Rubber Co., 749 F.2d 707, 715, 223 USPQ
1264, 1270 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Connell v. Sears,
Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548, 220 USPQ 193, 198 (Fed.
Cir. 1983); Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 771,
218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
Here, the examiner equates the claimed zooming to Peter’s
“data transfer operation.” Col. 4, l. 47. The reference’s
operation does begin with the display of a first bounding
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007