Appeal 2007-2921
Application 09/951,452
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
1. ANTICIPATION
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. See In re
King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann
Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co.,
730 F.2d 1452, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
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 Pharmaceutical
Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375-76 (Fed. Cir. 2005), citing Minn. Mining & Mfg.
Co. v. Johnson & Johnson Orthopaedics, Inc., 976 F.2d 1559, 1565 (Fed.
Cir. 1992). 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 (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.”)
ANALYSIS
We begin our analysis by noting that independent claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9,
10, and 135 recite outputting an error based on the results of encoding
information in divided bands, and subsequently recompressing the error
5 Appellant did not provide separate arguments with respect to the rejections
of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 13. Therefore, we select independent claim 1
as being representative of the cited claims. Claims 2, 5, 6, 9, 10 and 13
consequently fall together with representative claim 1. See In re Young,
927 F.2d 588, 590 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013