Appeal 2006-3369 Application 10/224,309 person to certify compliance” (Reply Br. 7). However, during prosecution, the Examiner may not read limitations into the claims that are not there. The words in the claim are “one or more reminders for the person to certify compliance”. In Gullotta, Examiner has presented one or more reminders for the person (but addressed to the resource provider) to certify compliance with the policy materials. For example, there is a reminder to the administrator for the new user’s benefit to supply that user with access to relevant job related documents in the database. We find that the applied prior art anticipates the claim as worded. PRINCIPLES OF LAW On appeal, Appellant bears the burden of showing that the Examiner has not established a legally sufficient basis for the rejection of the claims. 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 9Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013