Appeal 2007-0987
Application 09/810,992
Forecast Pro Product Description Brochure (Forecast Pro), December 2000,
web pages (unnumbered) available at
http://web.archive.org/web/*/www.forecastpro.com (last visited Oct. 13,
2005).
Claims 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being
anticipated by Forecast Pro. Claims 1-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a). As evidence of obviousness, the Examiner offers Kadowaki in
view of Forecast Pro with respect to claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 12-17, adds
Kurtzman, II to the basic combination respect to claims 3, 5, 10, and 11, and
adds Jacobi and Tetzlaff to the basic combination with respect to claim 7.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
reference is made to the Briefs and Answer for the respective details.
ISSUES
(i) Under 35 U.S.C § 102(a), does Forecast Pro have a disclosure
which anticipates the invention set forth in claims 18-20?
(ii) Under 35 U.S.C § 103(a), with respect to appealed claims 1-17,
has the Examiner established a prima facie case of obviousness based on
Kadowaki taken in separate combinations with the secondary references to
Forecast Pro, Kurtzman, II, Jacobi, and Tetzlaff?
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
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013