Appeal No. 2002-0604 Page 3
Application No. 09/240,926
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The Rejection Under Section 102
The appellant’s invention as manifested in claim 3 is a “mobile telephone”
comprising data storage that stores a reference position, at least one inertial motion
sensor that detects movement of the mobile telephone and outputs a signal indicative
of the movement, computational circuitry coupled to the data storage and to the inertial
motion sensor for computing the position of the mobile telephone in response to the
reference position and the inertial motion sensor, and at least one input device and
output device that receives user inputs and presents outputs.
The examiner is of the view that Neumann anticipates this claim. It is axiomatic
that anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference discloses, either
expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and every element of the claimed
invention. See, for example, In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480-1481, 31 USPQ2d
1671, 1675 (Fed. Cir. 1994) and In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655,
1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990). However, we agree with the appellant that such is not the case
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007