Appeal 2006-0272
Application 10/024,964
of a patent claim requires a finding that the claim at issue “reads on” a prior
art reference. Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1346, 51
USPQ2d 1943, 1945 (Fed Cir. 1999) (“In other words, if granting patent
protection on the disputed claim would allow the patentee to exclude the
public from practicing the prior art, then that claim is anticipated, regardless
of whether it also covers subject matter not in the prior art.”) (internal
citations omitted).
After carefully considering the evidence before us, we agree with the
Examiner that the language of the claim broadly but reasonably reads on
Brown’s redacted document that is transmitted from the web browser to an
output device for viewing by the user, where the user corresponds to the
source of the request. We find Brown explicitly discloses blurring (i.e.,
“redacting”) the image (col. 7, l. 67). We further find Brown transmits the
processed (i.e., redacted) image from the web browser (via a graphics
adapter) to a display device for viewing by the user (col. 9, ll. 61-63).
We note the claim broadly recites the term “source of the request” in
five separate places (Claim 1). We agree with the Examiner that the claimed
“source of the request” broadly but reasonably reads on a user who makes a
request for a document and later views the document on a display in
redacted form. Thus, we find Brown discloses both electrical and optical
transmission of the redacted document to the source of the request (i.e., the
user). We note the broad language of the claim places no limit on the type
(or medium) of transmission.
Appellants have imputed by argument that the claim, when interpreted
as a whole, requires a server to perform the transmission. We disagree. We
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013