Appeal 2007-0428
Application 10/210,361
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).
“A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary
skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the
path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from
the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553, 31
USPQ2d 1130, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS
Importers Int’l, 73 F.3d 1085, 1090, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1241 (Fed. Cir.
1995), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 80 (1996).
ANALYSIS
As set forth above, Appellant’s representative claim 1 requires a log
analysis engine for receiving an incident and for analyzing entries in an
updated local cache to determine a recovery action. The claim also requires
a diagnostic engine for executing a diagnostic module in response to a
directive received from the log analysis engine. We also note that the
functions of both the claimed log analysis and diagnostic engine, as recited
in independent claim 15, are implemented through software codes.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013