Appeal No. 2002-1897 Page 5
Application No. 09/207,420
Here, representative claim 1 specifies in pertinent part the following limitations:
"a dynamic structure which for each entity provides space . . . for a first collection of
references to possible subordinate entities and a second collection of references to
superior entities. . . ." Giving the representative claim its broadest, reasonable
construction, the limitations require a collection of references to superior entities and a
collection of references to possible subordinate entities.
"[H]aving ascertained exactly what subject matter is being claimed, the next
inquiry must be into whether such subject matter is novel." In re Wilder, 429 F2d 447,
450, 166 USPQ 545, 548 (CCPA 1970). “[A]nticipation is a question of fact.” Hyatt,
211 F.3d at 1371, 54 USPQ2d at 1667 (citing Bischoff v. Wethered, 76 U.S. (9 Wall.)
812, 814-15 (1869); In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431
(Fed. Cir. 1997)). "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)).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007