Appeal No. 2003-0205
Application 09/504,502
i. upon a match of said data in step h., entering at least
data from said bill of sale indicative of a new
owner into said new title record;
j. determining whether any collateral information
associated with said equipment and entered into
said title record would preclude the issuance of
an owner’s title; and
k. if not precluded, issuing said title record in a form
indicative of ownership of said equipment piece.
THE REFERENCE
Rose, Jr. 5,521,815 May 28, 1996
THE REJECTION
Claims 1-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Rose, Jr.
OPINION
We reverse the aforementioned rejection. We need to address
only the independent claims, i.e., claims 1, 9 and 16.
“Anticipation requires that every limitation of the claim in
issue be disclosed, either expressly or under principles of
inherency, in a single prior art reference.” Corning Glass Works
v. Sumitomo Electric, 868 F.2d 1251, 1255-56, 9 USPQ2d 1962, 1965
(Fed. Cir. 1989).
Each of the appellant’s independent claims requires that
before a title record in a computer database is updated to show
the new owner of a piece of equipment being sold, a check is made
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007