Appeal No. 2002-1832
Application No. 09/318,980 Page 4
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have carefully
considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections advanced
by the examiner, and the evidence of anticipation and obviousness
relied upon by the examiner as support for the rejections. We
have, likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in
reaching our decision, appellant's arguments set forth in the
briefs along with the examiner's rationale in support of the
rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner's
answer. Upon consideration of the record before us, we reverse.
We begin with the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b). To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference
must disclose every limitation of the claimed invention, either
explicitly or inherently. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477,
44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
We begin with independent claim 1. The examiner's position
(answer, page 4) is that Emerson teaches the claimed computer
system. The examiner relies upon the CPU of figure 4, the memory
storing the BIOS, a monitor, and the modem of figure 5A for
transferring system information to a host computer; see figure 4.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007