Appeal No. 2003-1606 Page 2
Application No. 09/289,901
BACKGROUND
The appellants' invention relates to a router instruction processor for use in a
digital document delivery system and method (specification, p. 1). A copy of the claims
under appeal is set forth in the appendix to the appellants' brief.
Claims 1 to 6, 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,963,9252 to Kolling et al. (Kolling).
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants' specification and claims, to the applied patent to Kolling, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner.3 As a consequence
of our review, we conclude that claims 1 to 6, 13 and 14 are not anticipated by Kolling
for the reason which follows.
To support a rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), it must be shown that
each element of the claim is found, either expressly described or under principles of
inherency, in a single prior art reference. See Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713
2 Issued October 5, 1999.
3 The position advanced by the examiner regarding this rejection is set forth in the answer (Paper
No. 13, mailed January 14, 2003). The appellants' argument against this rejection is set forth in the brief
(Paper No. 10, filed October 28, 2002) and reply brief (Paper No. 14, filed January 31, 2003).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007