Appeal 2007-1968
Application 10/400,856
The rule that anticipation requires that every element of a claim
appears in a single reference accommodates situations where the common
knowledge of “technologies” is not recorded in a reference, i.e., where
technical facts are known to those in the field of the invention. Continental
Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Similarly,
In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152 (Fed. Cir. 1995) confirms the longstanding
interpretation that the teachings of a reference may be taken in combination
with knowledge of the skilled artisan to put the artisan in possession of the
claimed invention within 35 U.S.C. § 102 even though the patent does not
specifically disclose certain features.
As to Smith, even the title of this patent indicates that it relates to a
heterogeneous computer environment. The Abstract plainly indicates the
interrelationships between a first and second operating system, labeled client
and server operating systems, for conversion between operating systems for
compatibility purposes between them. The Field of Invention discussion at
the bottom of column 1 of Smith plainly indicates that this heterogeneous
computer system of Smith operates to determine compatibility between two
different operating systems. This is also buttressed in the prior art
discussion of Figure 1 at column 4 and particularly the teachings at lines 52
through 63 of this column, in addition to the showings of the different
instruction set architectures in Figure 2 and the discussion beginning at the
middle of column 5 relative to this figure. The discussion at this column in
the paragraph beginning at line 53 emphasizes that different computer
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013