Appeal 2007-0456
Application 10/135,412
With respect to issues 1-6, we find the specific claim limitations argued by
Appellant do read on the Roberts reference in the manner asserted by the
Examiner. Specific findings of fact for each issue appear in the Analysis infra.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
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 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).
ANALYSIS
Analysis of Issue 1
Appellant acknowledges that Roberts is concerned with forming traffic over
a network into micro-flows that can be directed over different paths for
maintaining a Quality of Service (QoS) of the network (Br. 12). However,
Appellant contends Roberts is not concerned with determining a performance
related function based on an input specification and type of target system, but is
instead merely concerned with routing signals efficiently across a network to a
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013