Appeal No. 2000-2009
Application No. 08/832,430
OPINION
Although we agree with appellants to the extent that a prima facie case of
anticipation has not been established on this record, we disagree with any implication
(e.g., Reply Brief at 8) that Grimm fails to anticipate the claims because the reference
does not describe features as “object oriented programming object[s].” For a prior art
reference to anticipate in terms of 35 U.S.C. § 102, every element of the claimed
invention must be identically shown in a single reference, but this is not an “ipsissimis
verbis” test. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832, 15 USPQ2d 1566, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Thus, whether a reference anticipates a claim is not dependent on terminology alone.
However, we note that the claims before us contain terms of art. During patent
prosecution, the USPTO is to apply to claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the
words, consistent with their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027
(Fed. Cir. 1997).
Newton’s Telecom Dictionary (2001 ed.)1 defines an “object” in the context of
object-oriented programming as “a variable comprising both routines and data that is
treated as a discrete entity.” “An object is based on a specific model, where a client
using an object’s services gains access to the object’s data through an interface
consisting of a set of methods or related functions. The client can then call these
1 Although not a reference, we consider it unlikely that the art-recognized definitions have
changed in substance since filing of appellants’ application.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007