Ex Parte Grassian et al - Page 7

                Appeal 2007-0833                                                                               
                Application 10/280,254                                                                         
                data and software into and out of the docked PDA memory.  (Col.  5, ll. 31-                    
                38.)                                                                                           
                8.    Kikinis teaches that when the PDA is docked in the host unit, the PDA                    
                starts a pre-programmed POST procedure, which loads a bootstrap program                        
                to the RAM (68) of the PDA to retrieve codes for security matching, and to                     
                subsequently allow data transfer between the host computer and the PDA.                        
                (Col. 9, ll. 14-17 and Col. 10, ll. 15-22.)                                                    

                                           PRINCIPLES OF LAW                                                   
                                           1.    ANTICIPATION                                                  
                      It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can be found                    
                only 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, 1458, 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 Pharmaceutical                   
                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 “reads on” a prior                
                art reference.  Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1346, 51                       
                USPQ2d 1943, 1945 (Fed Cir. 1999) (“In other words, if granting patent                         
                protection on the disputed claim would allow the patentee to exclude the                       
                public from practicing the prior art, then that claim is anticipated, regardless               

                                                      7                                                        

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013