Appeal 2007-0357
Application 10/180,862
Except for the switch 65 in Figure 2 and the switch elements 65-69 in
Figure 4, the Specification is written from the perspective of the artisan
already knowing the details of the other disclosed elements because
appellants rely on the prior art for them. See In re Fox, 471 F.2d 1405,
1406-07, 176 USPQ 340, 341 (CCPA 1973).
It can thus be seen that many of the recitations in the claims on appeal
and the extensive positions set forth by the Examiner and Appellants in the
Answer, Brief and Reply Brief are directed to or encompass features that are
well known in the art to an ordinarily skilled artisan. Even though we
recognize that the Examiner has relied upon Intel alone to reject most of the
claims on appeal, and even in view of our preference that the Examiner
would have used a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the rule that anticipation
requires that every element of a claim appears in a single reference
accommodates situations where the common knowledge of “technologists”
is not recorded in a reference, i.e., where technical facts are known to those
in the field of the invention. Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d
1264, 1269, 20 USPQ2d 1746, 1749-50 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Similarly, In re
Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152, 36 USPQ2d 1697, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 1995),
confirms the longstanding interpretation that the teachings of a reference
may be taken in combination with knowledge of the skilled artisan to put the
artisan in possession of the claimed invention within 35 U.S.C. § 102 even
though the patent does not specifically disclose certain features. Still, the
Examiner’s correlations to Intel are well taken since this reference itself
makes reference to the above-noted elements known in the art.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013