Appeal 2007-0941
Application 10/165,068
performed within personal computer 20 (fig. 1). The Examiner further
argues that Appellants have mistakenly drawn the conclusion that network
interface 53 of Gbadegesin is the only network controller disclosed. The
Examiner points out that the term “network controller” is not so limited
considering the breadth of Appellants’ Specification that discloses: “the
network controller may be an intelligent peripheral installed within a server
or may be a network processor (NP) coupled to a server” (Specification 4:5-
7). The Examiner concludes that Appellants have mischaracterized
Gbadegesin's fig. 11 by stating that the gNAT function is performed by
server 140 (emphasis added). In contrast, the Examiner notes that gNAT
140 is a gateway machine, and is not a server, such as servers S1-S4 (fig. 11,
col. 10, ll. 5-6). The Examiner concludes that the gNAT (kernel-mode
translation module), is not located at the server or client, but at the gateway
(e.g. network controller) coupled between the servers and the clients, as
shown in fig. 11 (Answer 15-17).
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
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013