Appeal 2007-0642
Application 10/267,877
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful
consideration to Appellants’ Specification and claims, to the applied prior art
references, and to the respective positions articulated by Appellants and the
Examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the determinations
that follow.
At the outset, we note that Appellants have not provided a Brief in
compliance with 37 CFR § 41.37 wherein the Summary of the Claimed
Invention does not include a concise summary of each of the independent
claims. The Brief does not include a summary of independent claim 13.
Furthermore, Appellants have not separately argued this claim beyond any
assertions that were argued with respect to independent claim 1 that there is
no booting prevention signal and no disclosure of a masked program. We
find no limitation in independent claim 1 of a masked program and find that
Appellants have identified no express support in the Specification for the
masked program. We will therefore group independent claim 13 with
independent claim 1.
35 U.S.C. § 102
A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference. Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631,
2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987). The inquiry as to whether a
reference anticipates a claim must focus on what subject matter is
encompassed by the claim and what subject matter is described by the
reference. As set forth by the court in Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013