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 7Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013