Appeal No. 2002-1897 Page 8
Application No. 09/207,420
code allows an entity to be identified, moreover, we also find that the code is unique at
least within the organizational unit, viz., the class. Therefore, we affirm the rejection of
claim 3.
Third, the examiner asserts, "[a]s to claim 4, at least one conditional statement is
linked to one or more entities in the structure, which statement results in the outcome
provided therein as soon as the set condition is fulfilled (column 17, lines 31-38)." The
appellant argues, "it is unclear how this or any other passage of the applied reference
discloses at least one conditional statement linked to one or more entities in the
structure, with such statement resulting in the outcome provided therein as soon as the
set condition is fulfilled." (Appeal Br. at 7.)
Claim 4 specifies in pertinent part the following limitations: "at least one
conditional statement is linked to one or more entities in the structure, which statement
results in the outcome provided therein as soon as the set condition is fulfilled." Giving
the claim its broadest, reasonable construction, the limitations require at least one
conditional statement, which results in an outcome specified therein when a specified
condition is fulfilled, linked to at least one entity.
"[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.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007