Appeal 2007-0474
Application 10/692,885
1 (c) “…a service (rather than links incorporated within
2 particular data files) informs an InfoFrame viewing subsystem that a data
3 file has been updated” (Br. 5: 11-13).
4 Appellants further contend that,
5 (2) “…the Examiner has failed to provide a logical basis upon
6 which to base the assertion that Knutson et al. discloses the entirety of the
7 subject claims.” (Br. 6:10-12).
8 (3) “…the Examiner is subscribing to mere probabilities or
9 possibilities in an attempt to found [sic] inherency to substantiate the instant
10 35 U.S.C. §102 rejection.” (Br. 6:28-29).
11 (4) “…the Examiner rather than considering the claim as a
12 whole, has dissected the claim into discrete elements and thereupon has
13 conducted an evaluation of the elements in isolation of one another…” (Br.
14 7).
15 After a review of Knutson and considering the arguments presented
16 by Appellants and the Examiner, we find that the system and method for
17 segmenting a database based upon data attributes as disclosed by Knutson
18 anticipates the subject matter of at least representative claim 1.
19 It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can be found
20 only if the prior art reference discloses every element of the claim. See In re
21 King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and
22 Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730
23 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
24 With respect to claim 1, Appellants argue that the Examiner has
25 presented disparate and unrelated items disclosed in Knutson. While the
26 Examiner’s specific cites of Knutson may not be as succinct as Appellants
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013