Appeal No. 2002-2332
Application 09/220,293
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the evidence relied upon does not support either of the
rejections made by the examiner. Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-5 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by the disclosure of
Mullins. Anticipation is established only when a single prior
art reference discloses, expressly or under the principles of
inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention as well
as disclosing structure which is capable of performing the
recited functional limitations. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital
Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed.
Cir.); cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L. Gore and
Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ
303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
With respect to sole independent claim 1, the examiner
indicates how he reads the claimed invention on the disclosure of
Mullins [answer, page 4]. Appellants argue that Mullins only
teaches reading data from a data store, but not writing data to a
data store. Appellants argue that the claimed phrase
“transferring the data to and from the data store in response to
methods invoked in the at least one client adapter of the client
application” requires that data be written into the data store as
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007