Appeal 2007-0559
Application 10/037,659
21. In Drexler’s disclosure, neither the email to database utility program
40 nor the association 60 is described as being any constituent part of the database
program 80.
E. Principles of law
To establish anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, each and every element in a
claim, arranged as is recited in the claim, must be found in a single prior art
reference. Karsten Manufacturing Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376,
1383, 58 USPQ2d 1286, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Anticipation can be found when a
claim limitation is inherent or otherwise implicit in the relevant reference.
Standard Havens Products, Inc. v. Gencor Industries, Inc., 953 F.2d 1360, 1369,
21 USPQ2d 1321, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 1991). But for establishing inherency, that
which is missing in the express description must necessarily be present and would
be so recognized by one with ordinary skill in the art. Continental Can Co. USA,
Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268, 20 USPQ2d 1746, 1749 (Fed. Cir.
1991).
F. Analysis
The Anticipation rejection of Claims 1-5, 10-12, 14-17, 22-24,
26-31, 36-38, 40-43, 48-50, 52-58, 64-65, and 67-90 over Drexler
The claim limitations central to this appeal are the one in independent claims
1, 27, and 53, specifying storing of a table function in the database system, and the
one in independent claims 67, 75, and 83, specifying storing of the built invocation
mechanism in the database. In other words, the table function of claims 1, 27, and
53 is stored in the underlying database system, and the invocation mechanism of
claims 67, 75, and 83 is stored in the underlying database. According to the
appellant, such a feature is important because it permits the table function and the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013