Appeal No. 2003-1770
Application No. 09/526,155
"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." In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326,
231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See also Lindemann
Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist and Derrick, 730 F.2d
1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Thus, if any
limitation is not disclosed by Frey, the claims cannot be
anticipated.
Both independent claims 1 and 12 recite determining whether
to grant a requested lock "without using a lock compatibility
table." Claim 1 further recites that an algorithm is used
instead of the lock compatibility table. The examiner (Answer,
page 3) asserts that using an algorithm and not a lock
compatibility table can be found in column 11, at line 4, in
Frey. More specifically, the examiner explains (Answer, page 4)
that Frey discloses that "the compatibility table in the list
structure 46 is optional - meaning that the Fey [sic] et al.
invention reads on a system without a compatibility table."
Appellants argue (Brief, page 4) that the portion of column
11 cited by the examiner as teaching that a compatibility table
is not used merely teaches that the table is "optionally included
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007