Appeal No. 2006-1456
Application No. 09/896,802
Claims 5 and 18 as Group VI; and
Claims 6 and 19 as Group VII; and
Claims 7 and 20 as Group VIII.
See pages 5-15 of the brief. We will, thereby, consider Appellants’ claims as
standing or falling together in the eight groups noted above, and we will treat:
Claim 1 as a representative claim of Group I;
Claim 3 as a representative claim of Group IV; and
Claim 8 as a representative claim of Group V.
I. Whether the Rejection of Claims 1, 14, and 27 Under
35 U.S.C. § 102 is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the
disclosure of Cheng does fully meet the invention as recited in claims 1, 14, and
27. Accordingly, we affirm.
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. See In re King, 801
F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann
Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458,
221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
With respect to independent claim 1, Appellants argue at pages 6-7 of the
brief, that claim 1 is patentable because the connections between the boxes of
Cheng’s Figure 1 fail to teach determining the URL of a web page responsive to
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007