Appeal 2007-1245
Application 09/950,253
OPINION
The Anticipation Rejection
We now consider the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12, 13, and 15
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Kuwata. Anticipation is
established only when a single prior art reference discloses, expressly or
under the principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed
invention as well as disclosing structure which is capable of performing the
recited functional limitations. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems,
Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984); W.L. Gore
and Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303,
313 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
The Examiner has indicated how the claimed invention is deemed to
be fully met by the disclosure of Kuwata (Answer 4-5, 9-11). Regarding
independent claim 12, Appellant argues that Kuwata does not teach a
“photocopying device” comprising “photocopying hardware” and “an
embedded server” as claimed. Appellant contends that Kuwata’s server
merely copies files stored on the server. Appellant adds that Kuwata does
not disclose logic for generating at least one control screen that can be
uploaded to a user browser as claimed, but rather merely enables
management of electronic image files with the server (Br. 11).
The Examiner responds that Kuwata discloses a server accessible via
the internet that functions as a document scanner (i.e., a photocopying
device comprising photocopying hardware). The Examiner adds that this
“photocopying device” comprises an “embedded server” since the device (1)
scans and copies documents, and (2) can be accessed through a network to
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013