Appeal 2007-1318
Application 09/726,779
the condensed stored sequence from the file 52 and executes it
through the runtime screen of FIG. 9 of the runtime interface 54."
(Col. 9, ll. 16-18.) The engine 46 is linked to a results engine 56 that
provides results in a results interface 60. (Col. 9, ll. 18-20, 23-25;
Fig. 9.)
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
On appeal, all timely filed evidence and properly presented argument
is considered by the Board. See In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223
USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
In the examination of a patent application, the Examiner bears the
initial burden of showing a prima facie case of unpatentability. Id. at 1472,
223 USPQ at 788. When that burden is met, the burden then shifts to the
applicant to rebut. Id.; see also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1343-44, 74
USPQ2d 1951, 1954-55 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (finding rebuttal evidence
unpersuasive). If the applicant produces rebuttal evidence of adequate
weight, the prima facie case of unpatentability is dissipated. In re Piasecki,
745 F.2d at 1472, 223 USPQ at 788. Thereafter, patentability is determined
in view of the entire record. Id. However, on appeal to the Board it is an
appellant's burden to establish that the Examiner did not sustain the
necessary burden and to show that the Examiner erred -- on appeal we will
not start with a presumption that the Examiner is wrong.
Anticipation is established when a single prior art reference discloses
expressly or under the principles of inherency each and every limitation of
the claimed invention. Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013