Appeal No. 2006-3284
Application No. 10/061,871
properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by
Kamper. We also agree with the Examiner that claims 18, 20
through 30 are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Kamper and Sun.
Additionally, we agree with the Examiner that claim 19 is
properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over the combination of Kamper, Sun and Trimberger. Accordingly,
we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 4 through 9, 18
through 34 for the reasons set forth in the Examiner’s Answer, as
further expanded upon here, and for the reasons set forth infra.
I. Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), is the Rejection of Claims 1, 4
through 9, 31 through 34 as Being Anticipated By Kamper
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, Appellant argues in
the Appeal and Reply Briefs that the Kamper reference does not
disclose the limitation of a plurality of server configuration
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007