Appeal No. 2003-0977
Application No. 09/219,995
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 1-8, 11-19, and 22-24
under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
I. Whether the Rejection of Claims 1-8, 11-19, and 22-24
Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the disclosure of Bogart does not fully meet the invention
as recited in claims 1-8, 11-19, and 22-24. Accordingly, we
reverse.
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 Maschinenfabrik GMBH v.
American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481,
485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
With respect to independent claim 1, Appellants argue,
"'category of levels' . . . is not a category of skills" and "the
category of levels is not a 'score'". Rather, "the category of
levels is a category of numerical values or other levels
associated with a plurality of skills." (Appellants' brief, page
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007