Appeal No. 2006-1597
Application No. 09/218,822
Further, our review of Appellants’ specification (e.g., page 7, line 7 through page 8, line
7) finds an ample description of the operations of the claimed media manager which operates to
manage address assignments as well as to export the necessary interfaces to configure the system
to receive telemetry data. This same portion of the specification also provides a disclosure of the
claimed capture machine manager, stream sender, and serve controller.
In view of the above, since we find that the Examiner has not established a reasonable
basis for challenging the sufficiency of the instant disclosure with respect to the appealed claims,
we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1-16 and 18-25 under the enabling clause of the first
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
We consider next the rejection of claims 1-16 and 18-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Riggins. Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference
discloses, expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed
invention as well as disclosing structure which is capable of performing the recited functional
limitations. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir.); cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L. Gore and Associates, Inc. v.
Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S.
851 (1984).
With respect to the appealed independent claims 1, 14, and 20, the Examiner attempts to
read the various limitations on the disclosure of Riggins. In particular, the Examiner directs
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007