Appeal No. 2002-2053
Application No. 09/329,135 Page 4
Upon consideration of the record before us, we affirm-in-
part. Appellants (brief, page 3) lists independent claim 21 as
representative of the claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Mastering Windows. Appellants (brief, pages 3 and
4) additionally list independent claim 29 as representative of
the claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as anticipated by
Netscape. Consistent with these representations, appellants only
argue the limitations of independent claims 21 and 29.
Accordingly, we select claims 21 and 29 as being representative
of the rejected claims. We begin with the rejection of claims 1,
2, 8, 21, 22,28, 38-41, and 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Mastering Windows. We turn to independent claim
21.
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). The examiner's position is set
forth, in detail, on pages 2 and 3 of the final rejection1.
Appellants' position (brief, page 4) is that Mastering Windows
does not disclose a mechanism that “1) determines whether a
1 The rejections set forth in the final rejection have been incorporated
into the examiner's answer (answer, page 3).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007