Appeal No. 2006-1876
Application No. 09/877,522
communication between the image capture appliance that receives
the software and another device on the network (replay brief,
page 2). As pointed out by the Examiner (answer, page 7),
Anderson >749 also teaches that application program 760 may be
downloaded from a host computer or from a network to run in place
of the control application (col. 12, lines 14-18).
Therefore, while Anderson ‘749 does not explicitly describe
the downloaded application program as the software to facilitate
communication between the camera and the device, as held in In re
Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152, 36 USPQ2d 1697, 1701 (Fed. Cir.
1995), we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
understand that the application program affects the tool box and
the drivers, which in turn, would facilitate the camera interface
for external communication (col. 12, lines 5-13). See also
Helifix Ltd. v. Blok-Lok, Ltd., 208 F.3d 1339, 1347, 54 USPQ2d
1299, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (even if a piece of prior art does
not expressly disclose a limitation, it anticipates if a person
of ordinary skill in the art would understand the prior art to
disclose the limitation and could combine the prior art
description with his own knowledge to make the claimed
invention). Thus, a skilled artisan could take Anderson=s
teachings in combination with his own knowledge and be in
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007