Appeal No. 2002-0278
Application 08/797,674
response activation queue was added to the system after the
occurrence of the commercial activity in question. Thus,
Appellants argue that the commercial activity did not include all
the elements of the claimed invention and thereby assert that
claims are patentable over 35 U.S.C. § 102. See page 7 of
Appellants’ brief.
We note that the record shows that a declaration was filed
on February 9, 2001 and is recorded in the record as paper no.
14. The declaration is by Bryan Hornung who is one of the
inventors of the instant application. Mr. Hornung states that
the activation queue of the present invention was developed after
the occurrence of the activity described in the information
disclosure statement on April 30, 1997.
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can
be found only if the prior art reference discloses every element
of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136,
138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v.
American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1422, 1458, 221 USPQ 481,
485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
The Board’s findings must extend to all material facts and
must be documented on the record, lest the “haze of so-
called expertise” acquire insulation from accountability.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007