Appeal No. 2002-1136
Application 09/030,601
OPINION
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner’s rejections and the arguments of the
Appellants and the Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, and 5 through 16
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We will first address the rejection of claims 1, 2, and 5
through 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. 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 Maschninenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick
Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Appellants argue that the Examiner has not shown that
McMullin’s patent teaches Appellants’ claimed step of “converting
the call to an Internet Telephony format at the Internet Service
Provider if the call is not presently in such a format” as
recited in Appellants’ claim 1. See page 6 of Appellants’ brief.
In particular, Appellants argue that McMullin does not teach
converting the call to an Internet Telephony format at the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007