Appeal 2007-1784
Application 09/777,609
In reply, the Examiner reiterated that the connection tables 106-107
“keep track of all established connections, i.e., keep track of all network
connection status data of the hosted network connections,” and that Baskey
does teach the noted claim limitation (Answer 8).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
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,
1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1946 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475,
1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The claims on appeal should not be confined to specific embodiments
described in the specification. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323,
75 USPQ2d 1321, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
During ex parte prosecution, claims must be interpreted as broadly as
their terms reasonably allow since Appellants have the power during the
administrative process to amend the claims to avoid the prior art. In re Zletz,
893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
ANALYSIS
Nothing in the claims on appeal indicates that the claimed network
should be confined to a specific embodiment described in Appellants’
disclosure. Thus, Appellants’ argument concerning the specific type of
network described by Baskey is without merit since the claims on appeal are
not limited to a specific type of network. When the claims on appeal are
given their broadest reasonable interpretation, we find that the Examiner has
correctly concluded that the noted claim limitation reads directly on the
referenced teachings of Baskey.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013