Appeal 2007-1406
Application 09/910,970
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Briefs and the Answer for the respective details
thereof.
STATEMENT OF LAW
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. Corp.,
432 F.3d 1368, 1375-76, 77 USPQ2d 1321, 1325-26 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
(citation omitted). “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 of whether it also covers subject matter not in
the prior art.”) (citations omitted).
ANALYSIS
Independent claims 1, 9, 15, 23, and 29
We consider the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 9, 15,
23, and 29 as being anticipated by Dettmer.
We begin by noting that Dettmer discloses a rule-based system that
classifies television signals as representing commericials (Abstract).
Dettmer’s system provides for the elimination of those parts of the television
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013