Appeal 2007-0279
Application 10/042,079
program (110).2 Particularly, as depicted in figure 2, Krishna uses
declarations and interfaces of the first object-oriented software program to
generate an interface or library stubs (220) for compiling codes in a second
object-oriented software program. However, Krishna teaches excluding the
executable statements of the first object-oriented software while generating
the library stubs. (Page 2, paragraph [0025]).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
1. ANTICIPATION
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can be found 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 Lindemann
Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452,
1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
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
2 We note in the first sentence of the abstract, Krishna specifically indicates
that the first software program is capable of being referenced by the second
software program. (Abstract, ll. 1-2).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013