Appeal 2007-0459
Application 10/285,927
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).
We begin our analysis by noting that Appellants have acknowledged
that Liddy generates, sorts, ranks, and displays documents automatically (see
Br. 11). Appellants ground their argument for patentability on the premise
that Liddy does not teach or suggest a single component (i.e., an agent) that
performs the functions of generating an augmented search, performing the
search, and retrieving a result (Br. 12).
“[D]uring examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” In re Hyatt, 211
F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000). In the instant
case, we conclude that the Examiner has properly construed the language of
the claim in accordance with the broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the Specification.
When we look to the Specification for context, we find Appellants
have disclosed a discrete “Agent” and a discrete “Search Augmentation
Module” that operate in association with each other (Specification 8, see ¶ 2
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013