Appeal 2007-0716
Application 09/946,201
modified webpage (912) with substitute data (910), and (3) subsequently
forwards it to the requesting client (106) to be displayed by the web browser
(112). (Col. 20, ll. 46-63.)
11. Alternatively, the web browser contains a substitute processor (126)
that generates the substitute data (910). (Col. 20, ll. 61-63.)
12. If the client (106) is equipped with a substitute data processor, in
order to decode encrypted images received from the server (900), the
substitute data processor on the client must know the encryption algorithm
as well as the encryption key used by the server. (Col. 28, ll. 53-65.)
13. Schreiber also teaches that alternatively, an unauthorized user can
access a protected image upon purchasing the image. (Col. 33, ll. 11-24.)
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
1. ANTICIPATION
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can be found if
the prior art reference discloses every element of the claim. See In re King,
801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann
Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452,
1457, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a single prior art reference
that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a claim
invalidates that claim by anticipation. Perricone v. Medicis Pharm. 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
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013