Appeal 2007-1114
Application 10/314,687
35 U.S.C. § 102
A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference. Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2
USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987). The inquiry as to whether a reference
anticipates a claim must focus on what subject matter is encompassed by the
claim and what subject matter is described by the reference. As set forth by
the court in Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ
781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), it is only necessary for the claims to “‘read on’
something disclosed in the reference, i.e., all limitations of the claim are
found in the reference, or ‘fully met’ by it.” While all elements of the
claimed invention must appear in a single reference, additional references
may be used to interpret the anticipating reference and to shed light on its
meaning, particularly to those skilled in the art at the relevant time. See
Studiengesellschaft Kohle v. Dart Indus., Inc., 726 F.2d 724, 726-727, 220
USPQ 841, 842-843 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Here, we find that the Examiner has interpreted the claims in a
reasonable manner in light of the express limitations recited in the language
of independent claim 21. Appellants argue that the Appellants may be their
own lexicographer and that it is reasonable to look to Appellants’
Specification to interpret the claim language (Br. 13). The Examiner
counters that Appellants have not defined the term “control signal” in the
Specification. (Answer 9). The Examiner maintains that Yoo teaches
control signals which cause optical signals to be routed around faulty nodes
or links where the optical signal is bypassing the node or link. The
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013