Appeal No. 2006-2336
Application No. 09/849,916
with the Examiner’s rationale in support of the rejection and
arguments in the rebuttal set forth in the Examiner’s Answer.
After full consideration of the record before us, we do not
agree with the Examiner that claims 1 through 11, 13 through 16
and 18 through 20 are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
being anticipated by Henrikson. Accordingly, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 11, 13 through 16 and 18
through 20 for the reasons set forth infra.
I. Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), is the Rejection of claims 1
through 11, 13 through 16 and 18 through 20 as Being
Anticipated By Henrikson Proper?
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 representative claim 1, Appellants argue in
the Appeal and Reply Briefs that the Henrikson reference does not
disclose the use of a text file to identify function codes for a
selected frame, wherein the identified codes are subsequently
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007