Appeal 2007-1407
Application 09/823,141
message. "It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can be
found only if the prior art reference discloses every element of the claim."
In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See
also Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist and Derrick,
730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Since
Fernandez fails to disclose the claim limitation of removing a reminder
message, we cannot sustain the anticipation rejection of independent claims
1 and 11, nor of their dependents, claims 3 through 6, 10, and 12 through 18.
ORDER
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1, 3 through 6, and 10
through 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is reversed.
REVERSED
rwk
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
P.O. BOX 3001
BRIARCLIFF MANOR, NY 10510
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5
Last modified: September 9, 2013