Appeal No. 2002-1486
Application 08/931,480
The above-quoted disclosure indicates that users may access their account information through
the application profile which provides users access to the information contained in the user
account directory. The user account directory is defined as being limited to (a) directline MCI
profile, (b) Information Services profile, (c) Global Message Handling, (d) List Management,
and (e) Personal Home Page profiles. In that regard, the examiner has not established that any of
these items (a) through (e) stores real time usage information. The examiner has not pointed to
evidence which sets forth the content of each of these items (a) through (e). It cannot simply be
assumed that real time usage data is included in one or more of these items (a) through (e).
According to the examiner (Answer at 5), a user account must contain information on
how much the user owes. That is merely the examiner’s own assumption, rather than a fact
based on the disclosure of the Elliott reference. However logical it may be, we do not find that
such an assumption should be made for the user account directory where the Elliott reference
specifically states that the information in the user account directory is limited to certain items
(column 66, lines 5-9). Moreover, how much a user owes, or the balance in a user’s account, is
not the equivalent to real time usage information which is merely a factor affecting how much
the user owes. Other factors exist, such as prior payment, discount, rebate, taxes, etc.
To establish anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, each and every element and limitation in
a claim, arranged as is recited in the claim, must be found in a single prior art reference. Karsten
Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383, 58 USPQ2d 1286, 1291 (Fed. Cir.
2001); see also Glaxo, Inc. v. Novopharm, Ltd., 52 F.3d 1043, 1047, 34 USPQ2d 1565, 1567
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007