Appeal No. 2004-2086 Page 4
Application No. 09/238,800
Upon consideration of the record before us, we reverse. We
observe at the outset that appellants assert (brief, page 3) that
the claims stand or fall together. However, because appellants
are procedurally entitled to consideration of at least one claim
for each ground of rejection, we select claim 1 as representative
of the claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), and select claim
8 as representative of the claims rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
Turning to claim 1, we note that 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).
Appellants assert (brief, page 3) that Boucher does not teach or
suggest automatic or dynamic recipient side translation of a
received communication into a language desired by the recipient.
Appellants' position (brief, page 4) is that Boucher teaches a
sender activated and controlled communication translation system.
It is argued (id.) that because Boucher implements a sender's
side application (where the sender determines the language the
recipient receives), while appellants provide a receiver's side
application (where the recipient determines the language the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007