Appeal No. 1999-1557
Application 08/650,397
Additionally, Examiner asserts that Naito teaches an
equivalent concurrent recovery means as it interleaves the
updating of the files with the copying of blocks of files.
“A rejection for anticipation under section 102
requires that each and every limitation of the claimed
invention be disclosed in a single prior art reference.” In
re Paulsen,
30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
In addition, the reference must be enabling and describe the
applicant's claimed invention sufficiently to have placed it
in possession of a person of ordinary skill in the field of
the invention. Id. The first step of an anticipation
analysis is claim construction. Helifix Ltd. v. Blok-Lok
Ltd., 208 F.3d 1339, 1346, 54 USPQ2d 1299, 1303 (Fed. Cir.
2000). It is already well-settled that claim construction
includes a review of the claim language and the specification.
See Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576,
1582-83, 39 USPQ2d 1573, 1576-77 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Ordinary
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007