Ex Parte Couch et al - Page 7



             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