Appeal No. 2000-1703
Application No. 08/963,545
determination of the scope of claim 23, we note that Jackson’s
reporting system, although may cover different structures
containing the vending machines, corresponds to the claimed
“within the building” since Jackson uses common control and
shares one network, as defined by Appellants in their
specification.
Therefore, as discussed above, Jackson teaches all the
limitations of independent claim 23. Accordingly, claim 23 is
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Jackson.
B. Significance of prior art
Our new ground of rejection is based on the prior art cited
by Appellants. The fact that the Examiner considered the prior
art cited by Appellants and did not fully appreciate its
significance concerns us. In a similar situation, in Ex parte
Schricker, 56 USPQ2d 1723, 1730-1731 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int.,
2000)(unpublished), the Board has provided the following
analysis:
In re Portola Packaging, 110 F.3d 786, 790, 42 USPQ2d
1295, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 1997), makes the following
observation:
[G]overnment officials are presumed to have “properly
discharged their official duties.” United States v.
Chemical Found., Inc., 272 U.S. 1, 15 (1926). If the
references were in front of the examiner, it must be
assumed that * * * [the examiner] reviewed them.
17
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007