Appeal 2007-3131
Application 10/716,121
plurality of codes, each code comprising at least a data format.”
(Specification 3:4-5).
E. Principles of law
To establish anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, each and every
element in a claim, arranged as is recited in the claim, must be found in a
single prior art reference. Karsten Manufacturing Corp. v. Cleveland Golf
Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383, 58 USPQ2d 1286, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
Anticipation can be found when a claim limitation is inherent or otherwise
implicit in the reference. Standard Havens Products, Inc. v. Gencor
Industries, Inc., 953 F.2d 1360, 1369, 21 USPQ2d 1321, 1328 (Fed. Cir.
1991). That which is missing in the express description must necessarily be
present. Continental Can Co. USA, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264,
1268, 20 USPQ2d 1746, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
In proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, claim
terms are properly construed according to their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319,
321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
F. Analysis
Claims 1-20 include three independent claims: claims 1, 11, and 19,
which are reproduced below.
1. A universal monitor to be mounted in a tire of a
vehicle, the monitor for use in a remote tire pressure monitoring
system for the vehicle, the monitor comprising:
a sensor for sensing tire pressure;
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013