Appeal 2007-0230
Application 09/506,676
ll. 42 to 44; col. 10, ll. 19 and 20; col. 15, ll. 7 to 52), and each of the user
interfaces issues commands through the central controller 13 to control each
of the plurality of equipment.
Gray was applied by the Examiner for its teaching of a user interface
that “includes a system control and data acquisition (SCADA) having a
messaging control arranged therein (see col. 3, lines 14-39)” (Answer 10).
PRINCIPLE OF LAW
Anticipation is established when a single prior art reference discloses
expressly or under the principles of inherency each and every limitation of
the claimed invention. Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342,
1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1946 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475,
1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
ANALYSIS
Appellant acknowledges that each of the user interfaces in Smith can
control each of the pieces of equipment by issuing commands via the central
controller 13 (Br. 9). Nothing in the claims on appeal precludes each of the
user interfaces from operating through the central controller to control each
of the pieces of equipment. Thus, Smith has a teaching of each of the user
interfaces controlling each of the pieces of equipment in the system.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Anticipation has been established by the Examiner because the system
described by Smith teaches that each of a plurality of user interfaces controls
each of a plurality of equipment.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013