Appeal 2007-1271
Application 10/005,583
For Issue 6, we make the following finding of fact with respect to the
scope and content of the prior art and the differences between the claimed
invention and the prior art:
6. We find that Somashekar teaches and/or suggests uploading a
control screen to a user browser (See Analysis infra).
MATTERS OF LAW (Obviousness)
7. For issue 7, we conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the
art having common sense at the time of the invention would not
have been motivated to employ Somashekar’s embedded server
in Kuwata’s system in the manner suggested by the Examiner
given that Kuwata’s scanning control component is an actual
server (See Analysis infra).
STATEMENT OF LAW (Anticipation)
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 Pharm., 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
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013