Appeal No. 2006-2648 Page 6
Application No. 09/788,387
In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184, 26 USPQ2d 1057, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing
In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
Here, contrary to the appellants’ argument, claim 12 does not specify inserting an
image in a “desired” position. To the contrary, the representative claim recites in
pertinent part the following limitations: "inserting the image data in a desirable position
of said sequence listing of image data." Giving the claim its broadest, reasonable
construction, the limitations require inserting image data in a desirable position of a
sequence of image data.
2. Anticipation Determination
"Having construed the claim limitations at issue, we now compare the claims to
the prior art to determine if the prior art anticipates those claims." In re Cruciferous
Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1349, 64 USPQ2d 1202, 1206 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
"[A]nticipation is a question of fact." Hyatt, 211 F.3d at 1371, 54 USPQ2d at 1667
(citing Bischoff v. Wethered, 76 U.S. (9 Wall.) 812, 814-15 (1869); In re Schreiber, 128
F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). "A reference anticipates a
claim if it discloses the claimed invention 'such that a skilled artisan could take its
teachings in combination with his own knowledge of the particular art and be in
possession of the invention.'" In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152, 36 USPQ2d 1697,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007