Appeal 2007-0434
Application 10/041,207
1057, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13
USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
Here, independent claims 1 and 21 recite in pertinent part the
following limitations: "assigning an identifier to said digital image, said
identifier uniquely identifying said digital image so that said digital image
can be accessed over a network." Giving the independent claim the
broadest, reasonable construction, the limitations require assigning to a
digital image an identifier that is unique within a network.
B. ANTICIPATION AND OBVIOUSNESS ANALYSIS
"Having construed the claim limitations at issue, we now compare the
claims to the prior art to determine if the prior art anticipates those claims."
In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1349, 64 USPQ2d 1202,
1206 (Fed. Cir. 2002). "[A]nticipation of a claim under § 102 can be found
only if the prior art reference discloses every element of the claim. . . ." In
re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing
Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730
F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). "[A]bsence from
the reference of any claimed element negates anticipation." Kloster
Speedsteel AB v. Crucible, Inc., 793 F.2d 1565, 1571, 230 USPQ 81, 84
(Fed. Cir. 1986).
Here, Squilla describes "software and [a] system for cataloging digital
images into an electronically stored collection or library." (Col. 1, ll. 7-9.)
"Referring to FIG. 2, there is illustrated a flow diagram of the operation of . .
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013