Appeal No. 2006-0895
Application No. 09/902,515
messages are taught by Carr to have different fields containing
destination address and source address which are later compressed
according to two different compression dictionary tables (answer,
pages 10-11).
A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that
the four corners of a single prior art document describe every
element of the claimed invention, either expressly or inherently,
such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could practice
the invention without undue experimentation. See Atlas Powder
Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947
(Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d
1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Carr clearly discloses using different dictionary tables for
compression of user data or the header portion of a data packet
and for compression of the dynamic field data which may change
with each data packet (col. 7, lines 4-13 and 39-46). Although
we agree with Appellant that the data sent over the network of
Carr include data packets, we do not find that the Examiner has
made any error in reading the claims over the compression
techniques of Carr as applied to two different fields in the
transmitted data packets. It is the header and the dynamic
content of the transmitted data packets which, when taken as a
whole, indicate that the data packets of Carr are the same as the
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007