Appeal 2006-3079
Application 10/708,033
FF9. Appellants’ Specification does not define “story” or indicate in any
manner a use of the term “story” that differs from the ordinary and
customary definition (FF8).
FF10. Calhoun discloses an embodiment of the game in which a timing
device or timing means 26 is used to place a time restriction on a player’s
explanation. In such an embodiment, players must explain the relationships
within a limited amount of time. (Calhoun, col. 8, ll. 30-38.)
FF11. Bouchal evidences that educational card games in which a child or
other subject selects cards from a deck of cards bearing visual presentations
of a situation and uses those cards to tell a story were known at the time of
Appellants’ invention. From those cards, the child or other subject uses
some or all of the cards in the set to create a story, which story may be as
long and involved as the child or other subject chooses. (Bouchal, col. 2,
ll. 3-22.)
DISCUSSION
We begin our analysis with the rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by
Dwyer. To establish anticipation, every element and limitation of the
claimed invention must be found in a single prior art reference, arranged as
in the claim. Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376,
1383, 58 USPQ2d 1286, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Scripps Clinic & Research
Foundation v. Genentech, Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576, 18 USPQ2d 1001,
1010 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Anticipation does not require that the reference teach
what the subject application teaches, but only that the claim read on
something disclosed in the reference, i.e., that all of the limitations in the
claim be found in or fully met by the reference. Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013