Appeal No. 2005-2415 Παγε 3
Application No. 09/994,309
rejections, and to the brief (filed April 15, 2004) for the appellants' arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
We turn first to the examiner's rejection of claims 1 to 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Cook. We initially note that 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.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987).
The inquiry as to whether a reference anticipates a claim must focus on what subject
matter is encompassed by the claim and what subject matter is described by the
reference.
Appellants' invention, as recited in claim 1, is an apparatus for automatically
determining an individually adapted, non-prefabricated training unit. The training unit is
generated from existing training modules (specification at page 2). The training
modules are dependent on one another and these dependencies are stored in a data
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007