Appeal No. 2006-3323
Application No. 10/287,151
After full consideration of the record before us, we do not
agree with the Examiner that claims 1, 3 and 6 are properly
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Schmier.
We also do not agree with the Examiner that claim 5 is properly
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Schmier. Additionally, we do not agree with the Examiner that
claims 4 and 7 are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Schmier in combination with Ran and shyu
respectively. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections
of claims 1, 3 through 7 for the reasons set forth infra.
I. Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), is the Rejection of claims 1, 3
and 6 as Being Anticipated By Schmier 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 Schmier reference does not
disclose estimating and sending the time-of-arrival bounds for a
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007