Appeal No. 2002-1777 Page 6
Application No. 08/953,219
sections is reorganized in a way independent of a temporal decoding relationship
between that section and the other sections being reorganized.
"Having construed the claim limitations at issue, we now compare the claims to
the prior art to determine if the prior art anticipates those claims." In re Cruciferous
Sprout Litig., 64 USPQ2d 1202, 1206 (Fed. Cir. 2002). "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.2d760, 771, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed.
Cir. 1983)). "[A]bsence from the reference of any claimed element negates
anticipation." Kloster Speedsteel AB v. Crucible, Inc., 793 F.2d 1565, 1571, 230 USPQ
81, 84 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Here, Sotheran's inventive "embodiment chosen for description . . . relates to
the decoding of a plurality of encoded picture standards. More specifically, this
embodiment relates to the decoding of any one of the well known standards known as
JPEG, MPEG and H.261." Col. 1, ll. 17-21. For his part, the examiner relies on a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007