Appeal 2006-2281
Application 09/974,555
sustain this rejection as well. We find no error in the Examiner’s assertion
(Answer 8 and 21-22) that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have
recognized that the display configuration data stored in the slave display
devices 24-40 of Ludtke files would have been translated from the master
device configuration files and would necessarily have file identifiers, i.e.,
file names, in order to enable access from the master device 22. As
discussed by Ludtke (col. 22, ll. 1-5), each of the display devices 24-40 “has
status data structure that can be examined by the master device 22.” As also
mentioned by the Examiner (Answer 22), Appellants’ Specification (8:6-8)
recognizes that it is well known that “configuration options or commands
may be specified through a configuration file that is stored under a known
name an (sic, and) in a known location.” We would further point out that it
is well settled that, even if a reference fails to explicitly spell out every detail
of a claimed invention, such a reference would anticipate 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, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 1995), quoting from In re LeGrice, 301
F.2d 929, 936, 133 USPQ 365, 372 (CCPA 1962).
CONCLUSION
In summary, we have sustained the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
rejection of all the claims on appeal as being anticipated by Ludtke.
Therefore, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-19 is affirmed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013