Appeal 2007-1720
Application 09/148,832
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the
claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art
reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2
USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987).
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend Ginter does not anticipate the claimed invention because
Ginter fails to disclose a data package having a format defining a boundary in
accordance with an attribute for the transaction and the scope of data to be used for
the transaction (Appeal Br. 19).
The Examiner found:
Ginter does disclose a network system for suitably
distributing any content as a transactable product along
with, or even separate from, the rights and controls that
specify how the content is to be used. Ginter's "rules and
controls" also define not only access rights of users, but
also uses a format to set boundaries in accordance with
attributes for a transaction and the scope of data to be
used for the transaction (Answer 10).
The Examiner pointed to Figure 19 (depicting the data structure of a traveling
object) as an example of how Ginter’s rules and controls (e.g. “boundaries”) are
specified using specific formats and structures (Answer 11).
Appellants admit that Ginter’s “rules and controls” may be in the form of a
“permissions record (PERC)” 808 which specifies the rights associated with the
VDE object 300, e.g., who can open the container 302, who can use the object’s
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013