Appeal No. 2004-2267 Page 6
Application No. 09/651,184
Here, claim 1 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "generating data
file names corresponding to data files stored in the temporary directory; . . . generating
time stamps corresponding to the data file names and storing the time stamps in the
data structure; reviewing the time stamps to determine if a predetermined time delay
has passed; and generating commands to remove data files from the temporary
directory upon passage of the time delay." Claims 8 and 15 recite similar limitations.
Considering these limitations, claims 1, 8, and 15 require reviewing time stamps
corresponding to the names of data files stored in a temporary directory to determine if
a predetermined time delay has passed and, if so, generating commands to remove
data files from the temporary directory.
2. Anticipation Determination
"Having construed the claim limitations at issue, we now compare the claims to
the prior art to determine if the prior art anticipates those claims." In re Cruciferous
Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1349, 64 USPQ2d 1202, 1206 (Fed. Cir. 2002). "A claim
is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either
expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference." Verdegaal Bros., Inc.
v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (citing
Structural Rubber Prods. Co. v. Park Rubber Co., 749 F.2d 707, 715, 223 USPQ 1264,
1270 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548, 220
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007