Appeal No. 2006-3330
Application No. 09/922,196
Reference is made to the briefs and the answer for the respective positions of the
appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us, and we will sustain the
anticipation rejection of claims 1 through 4, 9 through 12, 14 and 24 through 26, and sustain the
obviousness rejection of claims 5 through 8, 13, 15, 16 and 27.
Anticipation is established when a single prior reference discloses, expressly or under the
principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention as well as disclosing
structure which is capable of performing the recited functional limitations. RCA Corp. v.
Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Turning first to the anticipation rejection of claim 1, we agree with the examiner’s
findings (answer, page 3) that Pennell describes all of the steps set forth in this claim. “[A] form
encountered on any number of web sites” is automatically filled in with information “stored
locally on each user’s computer” (paragraphs 0023 and 0024). A browser automation program
302 analyzes the form to determine the fields for which data is available from the user’s database
304 (paragraph 0026). “The user may supply all of the listed information in pop up window 401
or may modify some or all of it before supplying it to the form” (paragraph 0027). “Fig. 7
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007