Appeal 2007-0376
Application 10/280,259
separating the nodes into two groups of critical and non-critical nodes
(Answer 5). Thus, the question before this panel is whether the coupling of
nodes to the proprietary and non-proprietary buses in Berstis is the same as
the claimed separating the nodes into two groups based on how critical they
are for the operation of the vehicle.
A rejection for anticipation requires that the four corners of a single
prior art document describe every element of the claimed invention, either
expressly or inherently, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could
practice the invention without undue experimentation. See Atlas Powder
Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir.
1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed.
Cir. 1994).
Berstis uses an original equipment manufacturing (OEM) bus as a
proprietary bus to which a number of control components, that are crucial to
the operations of the vehicle, are coupled (col. 2, ll. 37-43). Berstis also
couples other components that are not crucial to the operations of the vehicle
to non-proprietary bus 12 (col. 2, ll. 55-57). We note Appellants’
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013