Appeal 2006-2281
Application 09/974,555
DISCUSSION
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art 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. 1984); W.L. Gore and Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721
F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
With respect to independent claims 1, 8, and 17, the Examiner
indicates (Answer 4-6) how the various limitations are read on the disclosure
of Ludtke. In particular, the Examiner points to the illustration in Figure 2
of Ludtke as well as the disclosure at column 19, lines 53-66, column 20,
lines 41-44, and column 24, lines 26-27 of Ludtke.
In our view, the Examiner’s analysis is sufficiently reasonable that we
find that the Examiner has as least satisfied the burden of presenting a prima
facie case of anticipation. The burden is, therefore, upon Appellants to come
forward with evidence and/or arguments which persuasively rebut the
Examiner’s prima facie case.
Appellants’ arguments in response assert that the Examiner has not
shown how each of the claimed features is present in the disclosure of
Ludtke so as to establish a case of anticipation. In particular, Appellants’
arguments focus on the contention that the Examiner has improperly
construed the claim language “compatible operating configuration.”
According to Appellants (Br. 4-6; Reply Br. 3-5), the cited claim language
must be interpreted as requiring the configuration of the graphics cards of
the multiple display computers and not merely the partitioning of a video
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013