Appeal No. 2001-2055 Page 7
Application No. 08/750,870
"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., 301 F.3d 1343, 1349, 64 USPQ2d 1202, 1206 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
"[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 . . .
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)).
Here, Sonberg discloses a "cellular telephone system," col. 2, ll. 27-28, which
offers "a variety," id. at l. 9, of services. Among these services are "transparent call
notification," id. at l. 13, and "caller notification." Id. at l. 14. Turning to the limitations at
issue, it is uncontested that the reference's cellular telephone system directs requests
for service from a network termination, i.e., "a roamer," col. 3, l. 5, to service
processing means, which is "shown in FIG. 1," id. at ll. 31-32, via signaling connections
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007