Appeal 2007-0278
Application 10/042,047
Shamoono. In particular, the Examiner points to Shamoon at paragraph
0248:
[0248] The commerce appliance function is not restricted to
streamed channel content but may include various browser-type
applications consisting of aggregated composite content such
as still imagery, text, synthetic and natural video and audio and
functional content such as applets, animation models and so on,
these devices include browsers, set-top boxes, etc. [emphasis
added].
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a single prior art reference
that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a claim
invalidates that claim by anticipation. Perricone v. Medicis Pharmaceutical
Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375-76, 77 USPQ2d 1321, 1325-26 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
(citing Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Johnson & Johnson Orthopaedics, Inc.,
976 F.2d 1559, 1565, 24 USPQ2d 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1992)).
Anticipation 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).
We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1 for
essentially the same reasons argued by the Examiner in the Answer. In
particular, we note that Shamoon expressly discloses: “browser-type
applications consisting of aggregated composite content such as still
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013