Appeal 2006-2971
Application 10/015,256
Throughout our opinion, we make references to the Appellants’
Briefs, and to the Examiner’s Answer for the respective details thereof.1
OPINION
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on appeal,
the Examiner’s rejections and the arguments of the Appellants and the
Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 1 to 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
I. Whether the Rejection of Claims 1 to 21 Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the
disclosure of Sziklai does not fully meet the invention as recited in claims 1
to 21. Accordingly, we reverse.
“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).
Sziklai presents an integrated system for managing changes in the
computer support system for business activities central to that enterprise.
The Sziklai system does contain many of the claimed elements, but a line by
1 Appellants filed an Appeal Brief on 9/1/2005. The Examiner mailed an
Examiner’s Answer on 11/18/2005.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013