ENTIT SOFTWARE LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 9, 2020

2020001281 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 9, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/478,420 09/05/2014 David John Babcock 84030806 5021
146568 7590 06/09/2020
MICRO FOCUS LLC
500 Westover Drive
#12603
Sanford, NC 27330
EXAMINER
LEE, JENNIFER V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/09/2020 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
software.ip.mail@microfocus.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DAVID JOHN BABCOCK,
SPENCER FIRESTONE, and JAGADEESH KANDASAMY
____________

Appeal 2020-001281
Application 14/478,420
Technology Center 3600
____________

BEFORE DONALD E. ADAMS, JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, and
RACHEL H. TOWNSEND, Administrative Patent Judges.

ADAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1–5 and 7–21 (see Final Act.2 2). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “EntIT
Software LLC . . . a wholly-owned affiliate of Micro Focus International
Plc” (Appellant’s June 24, 2019 Appeal Brief (Appeal Br.) 1).
2 Examiner’s February 8, 2019 Final Office Action.
Appeal 2020-001281
Application 14/478,420

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant defines the term “demonstrate” as including
“demonstrating, training, supporting, helping, and otherwise providing
assistance according to the examples provided” in Appellant’s Specification
(Spec. ¶ 8). In this regard, Appellant discloses that “[d]emonstrations and
training for products, such as computer programs, can be challenging and
complex. Varied demonstration environments, and the need to maintain
demonstration environments in a ‘customer readiness’ state, make it difficult
to demonstrate relevant features in an easily understood manner that allows
hands-on interaction” (Spec.3 ¶ 1). Appellant appreciates that “[p]roducts
are available to help create product demonstrations,” but contends that
“they . . . offer features for supporting static demonstrations replayed in
various formats,” “may be limited to web-based products, and/or may be
limited to demonstrating a single product” (id. ¶ 8). Appellant overcomes
the limitations of prior products by providing
guided demonstrations by engines that provide for interaction
with one or more live products[4] to be demonstrated, creating a
dynamic and flexible experience that is not limited to a mere
viewing of a recorded replay, for a more gratifying, interactive,
and educational demonstration experience based on content,
scripts, and/or other materials. . . . For example, demonstrating
a product may enable fully interactive participation by users,
who may view and actively use the product as it is being
demonstrated (e.g., by demonstrating it to him- or herself). In
an example, a demonstration may be used as a “walk-through”
or support tool to guide a user through installation of a product,

3 Appellant’s September 5, 2014 Specification.
4 Appellant discloses that “a computer application” is an example of a live
product (Spec. ¶ 17).
Appeal 2020-001281
Application 14/478,420

3
or through a support scenario to address a help call of a live
product being used by the user.
(Id.)
Appellant discloses that its
demonstration may be provided as a self-contained application,
enabling focus to remain on demonstrating technical
features/capabilities of the product to be demonstrated, without
becoming distracted by a need to prepare the demonstration
environment (computer system) itself. The demonstration may
serve as a wrapper around one or more live products to be
demonstrated, and guide the demonstration through the usage of
those actual live products. Thus, examples described herein
enable a customizable, multi-purpose, cross-platform
framework for building guided live demonstrations. In an
example, a demonstrator may look over a user's shoulder
(literally and/or virtually) and point out features of a program.
Examples provide unobstructed visual cues, automated and/or
manual script triggers, and seamless process and/or window
management with live products. Custom images and/or scripts
may be incorporated easily, to augment the demonstration.
Demonstrations may be packaged in a virtual machine (VM)
package for ease of distribution, isolation from potential
demonstration environment issues/conflicts, and simple
restoration of modified data.
(Id. ¶ 9.)
Appellant’s claims 1 and 12 are reproduced below:5
1. A computing system comprising:
a processor;

5 Examiner entered Appellant’s September 20, 2018 claim amendments (see
Final Act. 2). The Claims Appendix of Appellant’s Brief reproduces
Appellant’s claims as amended September 20, 2018. Our review of this
record is in the context of Appellant’s claims as amended September 20,
2018.
Appeal 2020-001281
Application 14/478,420

4
a non-transitory storage medium storing framework
instructions executable on the processor to provide a
framework that demonstrates a live product that is executable
in a machine environment independently from the framework
instructions, wherein the framework includes a first graphical
user interface (GUI) panel comprising a plurality of graphical
elements representing respective steps of a demonstration of the
live product, and a second GUI panel to display content and at
least a portion of the live product according to the steps, the
first GUI panel presenting the steps in a first order, wherein the
steps are customizable for different audiences of the
demonstration of the live product, the graphical elements in the
first GUI panel selectable to navigate through the
demonstration, wherein the steps are performable responsive to
selections of the graphical elements in an order different from
the first order in which the steps are presented by the first GUI
panel; and
a script executable in response to user selection of a
graphical element representing a first step of the steps in the
first GUI panel, where execution of the script causes
manipulation of a feature of the live product.
(Appeal Br. i (emphasis added).)
12. A method, comprising:
demonstrating, by framework instructions executed by a
computer, a live product that is installed in a machine
environment independently of the framework instructions, the
demonstrating displaying a framework including a first panel
comprising a plurality of graphical elements representing
respective steps of a demonstration of the live product, and a
second panel to display content and at least a portion of the live
product according to the steps, the first panel presenting the
steps in a first order, wherein the graphical elements in the first
panel are selectable to navigate through the demonstration; and
executing, by script instructions executed by the
computer, a script in response to user selection of a graphical
element representing a first step of the steps, wherein the steps
are performable responsive to selections of the graphical
Appeal 2020-001281
Application 14/478,420

5
elements in an order different from the first order of the steps
presented by the first panel.
(Id. at iii.)
14. A non-transitory machine-readable storage media storing
framework instructions executable by a computing system that,
when executed, cause the computing system to:
demonstrate a live product executable in a machine
environment, the demonstrating based on a framework
including a first panel comprising a plurality of graphical
elements representing respective steps of a demonstration of the
live product, and a second panel to display content and at least a
portion of the live product according to the steps, the first panel
presenting the steps in a first order, wherein the graphical
elements in the first panel are selectable to navigate through the
demonstration, wherein the live product is independent of the
framework instructions; and
execute a script in response to user selection of a
graphical element representing a first step of the steps in the
first panel, where execution of the script causes manipulation of
a feature of the live product, wherein the steps are performable
responsive to selections of the graphical elements in an order
independent of the first order in which the steps are presented
by the first panel.
(Id. at iii.)

Grounds of rejection before this Panel for review:6
Claims 1–5 and 7–21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph.

6 The statement of each of Examiner’s rejections do not include Appellant’s
claim 21 (see Final Act. 9 and 15). We find the omission of Appellant’s
claim 21 from each ground of rejection to represent a harmless typographical
error. Therefore, we include Appellant’s claim 21 in our deliberations of
each ground of rejection.
Appeal 2020-001281
Application 14/478,420

6
Claims 1–5 and 7–21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as anticipated by Nicol.7

DEFINITENESS:
ISSUE
Does the preponderance of evidence support Examiner’s conclusion
that Appellant’s claims are indefinite?
ANALYSIS
Claim 1:
The computing system of Appellant’s claim 1 comprises, inter alia, “a
non-transitory storage medium storing framework instructions executable on
the processor to provide a framework that demonstrates a live product that is
executable in a machine environment independently from the framework
instructions” (Appeal Br. i). Examiner finds this phrase indefinite, because
“it is unclear whether it is the live product or the demonstration of the live
product that is executable independently” (Final Act. 9). Examiner further
finds that “it is unclear[, from the foregoing phrase,] whether the live
product, if executable independently from the framework instructions of the
system, is . . . a component of the system or outside the system” (id.). Thus,
for examination purposes, Examiner interpreted the foregoing phrase as “a
non-transitory storage medium storing framework instructions executable on
the processor to provide a framework to demonstrate a live product” (id.).
We are not persuaded.

7 Nicol et al., US 2007/0234196 A1, published Oct. 4, 2007.
Appeal 2020-001281
Application 14/478,420

7
“The definiteness inquiry focuses on whether those skilled in the art
would understand the scope of the claim when the claim is read in light of
the rest of the specification.” Union Pacific Resources Co. v. Chesapeake
Energy Corp., 236 F.3d 684, 692 (Fed. Cir. 2001). As Appellant explains,
on this record, when its claims are interpreted in light of Appellant’s
Specification, those of ordinary skill in this art would understand that it is
“the live product that is executable independently from the framework
instructions,” i.e., “in a machine environment independently from the
framework instructions,” as required by Appellant’s claimed invention and
disclosed in Appellant’s Specification (Appeal Br. 7 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 18
(“Systems based on the framework . . . may take advantage of standard, live
products . . . installed on a given machine environment, that may be installed
and/or launched separately from the framework system.”) and 24 (“If the
live product . . . is not present (e.g., not installed on the current computing
environment), the system may display a message informing the user to
install and/or execute the live product . . ., and/or may automatically install
the live product.”))).
The computing system of Appellant’s claim 1 further requires “the
framework includes a first graphical user interface (GUI) panel comprising a
plurality of graphical elements representing respective steps of a
demonstration of the live product, and a second GUI panel to display content
and at least a portion of the live product according to the steps” (Appeal Br.
i). Based on Examiner’s interpretation of Appellant’s claimed computing
system as comprising “a non-transitory storage medium storing framework
instructions executable on the processor to provide a framework to
demonstrate a live product,” Examiner further interprets, for examination
Appeal 2020-001281
Application 14/478,420

8
purposes, Appellant’s claim as comprising a framework that includes, inter
alia, “a second GUI panel to display content and at least a portion of the at
least one live product according to the steps” (Final Act. 9). We are not
persuaded. As Appellant explains, Examiner’s interpretation of the second
GUI panel is incorrect because it is based on an incorrect interpretation of
the phrase “a non-transitory storage medium storing framework instructions
executable on the processor to provide a framework that demonstrates a live
product that is executable in a machine environment independently from the
framework instructions” (Appeal Br. 9; see id. at i).
Appellant’s claim 1 further requires that “the steps are performable
responsive to selections of the graphical elements in an order different from
the first order in which the steps are presented by the first GUI panel”
(Appeal Br. i). According to Examiner “the steps are not presented by the
framework but rather the graphical elements representing the steps are the
components included in the framework provided” (Final Act. 9). Thus,
Examiner finds that “it is unclear [from this requirement] how the steps are
performable in an order different from an order in which the steps are
presented by the framework when the steps are never presented” (id. at
9–10). We are not persuaded.
As Appellant explains:
Claim 1 specifically recites that the framework instructions are
executable on the processor to provide a framework that
includes a first GUI comprising a plurality of graphical
elements representing respective steps of a demonstration of the
live product. Thus, the foregoing language of claim 1 clearly
establishes that the steps are in fact presented by the plurality of
graphical elements in the first GUI panel of the framework that

Appeal 2020-001281
Application 14/478,420

9
is provided by the framework instructions executable on the
processor.
(Reply Br. 2.) In addition, Appellant explains, that
Claim 1 further recites that the steps (that are presented by the
plurality of graphical elements in the first GUI panel of the
framework provided by the framework instructions) are
performable responsive to selections of the graphical elements
in an order different from the first order in which the steps are
presented by the first GUI panel. What this language recites is
that the graphical elements that are part of the first GUI panel of
the framework provided by the framework instructions can be
selected to cause performance of steps, and the order of the
selections of the graphical elements can cause the steps to be
performed in an order different from the first order in which the
steps are presented by the first GUI panel.
(Id. at 3.) Thus, as Appellant explains, when interpreted in light of its
Specification:
A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
graphical elements provide a visual representation of the steps.
Therefore, since the graphical elements of claim 1 are part of
the first GUI panel, the first GUI panel would in fact present the
steps in the form of the graphical elements. Therefore, the
language “the steps are presented by the first GUI panel” is not
indefinite.
(Appeal Br. 10; see generally Reply Br. 3.)

Claims 2–5, 7–11, and 16–18:
Examiner finds that because Appellant’s claims 2–5, 7–11, and 16–18
depend from Appellant’s claim 1 they are indefinite for the same reasons as
Appellant’s claim 1 discussed above (Final Act. 10). Having found
Appellant’s claim 1 definite, we are not persuaded by Examiner’s
indefiniteness rejection of Appellant’s claims 2–5, 7–11, and 16–18.
Appeal 2020-001281
Application 14/478,420

10
Claim 5:
Appellant’s claim 5 depends from and further limits the computing
system of Appellant’s claim 1 to require that “the framework instructions are
responsive to the script to perform a task to change the content displayed in
the second GUI panel” (Appeal Br. ii).
Examiner reasons that, “in claim 1, in order for the script to be
executed the framework instructions must have been executed in order to
provide the framework including the first GUI panel with its graphical
elements, as it is one of those graphical elements that must be selected to
execute the script” (Final Act. 10). “Thus, [Examiner reasons,] it is unclear
how the framework instructions are responsive to the script in claim 5, when
in claim 1, the script is responsive to the framework instructions” (id. at 10–
11). Stated differently, Examiner finds that it is unclear from Appellant’s
claim 5:
[W]hether the Applicant intended for 1) the framework
instructions, which are responsive to the script, to perform a
task to change the content displayed in the second GUI panel,
or intended that 2) the framework instructions are responsive to
the script, the script to perform a task to change the content
displayed in the second GUI panel, or had another intended
meaning.
(Id. at 10.) Therefore, for examination purposes, Examiner interpreted
Appellant’s claim 5 as “changing the content displayed in the second GUI
panel” (id. at 11). We are not persuaded.
As Appellant explains, “the term ‘framework instructions’ refer to
‘instructions’ in the plural sense. A person of ordinary skill in the art would
clearly understand that framework instructions can include multiple
Appeal 2020-001281
Application 14/478,420

11
instructions that perform respective different tasks” (Reply Br. 5). Thus,
Appellant explains:
The action of the framework instructions performed in claim 5,
task . . ., is separate from the actions of the framework
instructions performed in base claim 1 . . . . There is no
requirement that framework instructions can perform just the
actions recited in the claim 1. It is possible for the framework
instructions to first provide the framework that includes the first
GUI panel comprising graphical elements representing
respective steps, then the script is executable in response to user
selection of a graphical element representing a first step in the
first GUI panel, and then the framework instructions are
responsive to the script to perform another task, such as the task
to change the content displayed in the second GUI panel recited
in claim 5.
(Id. at 4; see also id. at 5 (Appellant contends that “[t]he framework
instructions recited in claim 5 are capable of performing multiple different
tasks in response to different events or inputs, and claim 5 has clearly set
forth what these tasks are”).) For the foregoing reasons, we agree with
Appellant’s contention that “[f]rom the context of claim 5, it is clear that it is
the framework instructions that are to perform a task to change the content
displayed in the second GUI panel” (Appeal Br. 11).

Claim 7:
Appellant’s claim 7 depends from and further limits the computing
system of Appellant’s claim 1 to require that “responsive to the execution of
the script, the framework instructions are to perform a task to automatically
test for a presence of a window of the live product, and if the window of the
live product is not present, cause the live product to launch the window”
(Appeal Br. ii).
Appeal 2020-001281
Application 14/478,420

12
Examiner reasons that, “in claim 1, in order for the script to be
executed the framework instructions must have been executed in order to
provide the framework including the first GUI panel with its graphical
elements, as it is one of those graphical elements that must be selected to
execute the script (Final Act. 11). “Thus, [Examiner reasons,] it is unclear
how the framework instructions are responsive to the execution of the script
in claim 7, when in claim 1, the script is responsive to the framework
instructions” (id.). Stated differently, Examiner finds that it is unclear from
Appellant’s claim 7:
[W]hether the Applicant intended for 1) the framework
instructions, which are responsive to the execution of the script,
to perform a task to automatically test for a presence of a
window of the live product, or 2) the framework instructions
are responsive to the execution of the script, the script to
perform a task to automatically test for a presence of a window
of the live product, or had another intended meaning.
(Id. at 11.) Examiner’s further finding that Appellant’s claim 7 requires that
“the framework instructions play[] a role in causing the live product to
launch the window” and, [c]onsequently, it is unclear how the live product –
whose window, if not previously presented, is subsequently launched by the
framework instructions – can be ‘executable independently from the
framework instructions . . .’ as recited in [Appellant’s] claim 1” (id. at 11–12
(emphasis omitted)). Therefore, for examination purposes, Examiner
interpreted Appellant’s claim 7 as “displaying a window of the live product”
(id. at 12). We are not persuaded.
As Appellant explains:
Claim 7 recites that the framework instructions are to perform a
task to automatically test for presence of a window of the live
product, and if the window of the live product is not present, to
Appeal 2020-001281
Application 14/478,420

13
cause the live product to launch the window. This merely refers
to an interaction between the framework instructions and the
live product. However, that does not preclude the ability for the
live product to be executable independently from the
framework instructions. Note that outside of the interaction
between the framework instructions and the live product recited
in claim 7, the live product and the framework instructions can
execute independently of one another.
(Appeal Br. 14.) In addition, claim 7 requires that “[t]he foregoing action of
the framework instructions are ‘responsive to the execution of the script’”
(id. at 13). For the foregoing reasons, we agree with Appellant that
Examiner’s interpretation of claim 7 “‘as merely displaying a window of the
live product’ . . . ignores [the] express words of the claim, and is clearly in
error” (id. at 14).

Claim 8:
Appellant’s claim 8 depends from and further limits the computing
system of Appellant’s claim 1 to require that “responsive to the execution of
the script, the framework instructions are to perform a task to automatically
test for an attribute of a window of the live product, and if the attribute is not
consistent with a second step of the steps, the framework instructions are to
manipulate the window of the live product to be consistent with the second
step” (Appeal Br. ii).
Examiner reasons that, “in claim 1, in order for the script to be
executed the framework instructions must have been executed in order to
provide the framework including the first GUI panel with its graphical
elements, as it is one of those graphical elements that must be selected to
execute the script” (Final Act. 12). “Thus, [Examiner reasons,] it is unclear
how the framework instructions are responsive to the script in claim 8, when
Appeal 2020-001281
Application 14/478,420

14
in claim 1, the script is responsive to the framework instructions” (id. at 12–
13). Stated differently, Examiner finds that it is unclear from Appellant’s
claim 8:
[W]hether the Applicant intended for 1) the framework
instructions, which are responsive to the script, to perform a
task to automatically test for an attribute of a window of the
live product, or 2) the framework instructions are responsive to
the script, the script to perform a task to automatically test for
an attribute of a window of the live product, or had another
intended meaning.
(id. at 12.) Therefore, for examination purposes, Examiner interpreted
Appellant’s claim 8 as “manipulating the window of the live product” (id. at
13). We are not persuaded.
As Appellant explains, its “claim 8 expressly recites ‘the framework
instructions are to perform a task to automatically test for an attribute of a
window of the live product.’ Therefore, there is no ambiguity. The
framework instructions perform this task responsive to the execution of the
script” (Appeal Br. 15). For the foregoing reasons, we agree with Appellant
that Examiner’s interpretation of claim 8 “‘as merely manipulating the
window of the live product’ . . . ignores [the] express words of claim 8, and
is clearly erroneous” (id.).

Claim 10:
Appellant’s claim 10 depends from and further limits the computing
system of Appellant’s claim 1 to require that “the framework instructions are
executable to display the first GUI panel on a first display screen, and the
second GUI panel on a second GUI display screen separate from the first
display screen” (Appeal Br. ii). Examiner finds that Appellant’s “[c]laim 10
Appeal 2020-001281
Application 14/478,420

15
is directed to a system and recites ‘a first display screen’ and ‘a second GUI
display screen’” and “[a]s recited, it is unclear whether the screens are
intended to be components of the recited system” (Appeal Br. 13 (emphasis
omitted)). We are not persuaded.
As Appellant explains:
The first and second display screens can either be part of
the computing system or can be separate from the computing
system. The framework instructions can present the first and
second GUI panels either on display screens that are part of the
computing system, or on display screens that are remote from
the computing system but which are connected by a network to
the computing system. There is no requirement that Applicant
must limit claim 10 to one of these different possible
embodiments to satisfy § l 12(b).
(Appeal Br. 16–17.)

Claim 11:
Appellant’s claim 11 depends from and further limits the computing
system of Appellant’s claim 1 to require that “the framework instructions are
executable to display a third GUI panel associated with a feature of the
demonstration, wherein the framework instructions are executable to
highlight the feature in response to a step corresponding to the feature being
active” (Appeal Br. ii). Examiner finds that Appellant’s claim 11 “recites
‘wherein the framework instructions are executable to highlight the feature
in response to a step corresponding to the feature being active’” and “[a]s
recited, it is unclear whether the Applicant intended for 1) a step,
corresponding to the feature, being active (i.e. the step to be active) or 2) the
step corresponding to the feature, the feature being active (i.e. the feature to
be active) or had some other intended meaning” (Final Act. 13 (emphasis
Appeal 2020-001281
Application 14/478,420

16
omitted)). We are not persuaded. As Appellant explains, its “[c]laim 11 is
unambiguous in stating that it is the step being active, where the step
corresponds to the feature. Therefore, claim 11 is not indefinite” (Appeal
Br. 17).

Claims 12 and 15:
Examiner asserts that Appellant’s “[c]laims 12 and 15 are rejected
under substantially similar grounds as claims 1 and 11 [above]” (Final Act.
13 (emphasis omitted)). Having found Appellant’s claims 1 and 11 definite,
we are not persuaded by Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection of Appellant’s
claims 12 and 15 (see generally Appeal Br. 17).

Claim 19:
Examiner finds that because Appellant’s claim 19 depends from
Appellant’s claim 12 it is indefinite for the same reasons as Appellant’s
claim 12 discussed above (Final Act. 13). Having found Appellant’s claim
12 definite, we are not persuaded by Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection of
Appellant’s claim 19 (see generally Appeal Br. 17).

Claims 20 and 21:8
Examiner finds that because Appellant’s claims 20 and 21 depend
from Appellant’s claim 14 it is indefinite for the same reasons as Appellant’s
claim 14 discussed above (Final Act. 13). Having found Appellant’s claim

8 As discussed above, although Examiner does not address Appellant’s claim
21, we find the omission of Appellant’s claim 21 to represent a
typographical error and include it in our deliberation of this rejection.
Appeal 2020-001281
Application 14/478,420

17
14 definite, we are not persuaded by Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection of
Appellant’s claims 20 and 21 (see generally Appeal Br. 17).
CONCLUSION
The preponderance of evidence fails to support Examiner’s conclusion
that Appellant’s claims are indefinite. The rejection of claims 1–5 and 7–21
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is reversed.

ANTICIPATION:
ISSUE
Does the preponderance of evidence on this record support
Examiner’s finding that Nicol teaches Appellant’s claimed invention?
ANALYSIS
“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 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Analysis of whether a claim is patentable over
the prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 begins with a determination of the scope
of the claim. We determine the scope of the claims in patent applications
not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their
broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech.
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The properly interpreted claim
must then be compared with the prior art.
On this record, Examiner explains that the anticipation rejection is
based on Examiner’s interpretation of Appellant’s claimed invention
discussed above with respect to the definiteness rejection (see Ans. 10–11).
Appeal 2020-001281
Application 14/478,420

18
As discussed above, however, Examiner incorrectly interpreted Appellant’s
claimed invention. Thus, Examiner’s anticipation rejection is based
on an incorrect interpretation of Appellant’s claimed invention.
As Appellant explains, when its claims are correctly interpreted,
Examiner failed to establish an evidentiary basis on this record to support a
finding that Nicol anticipates Appellant’s claimed invention (see Reply Br.
5–6; see also Appeal Br. 18–24 (Appellant explains specifically why Nicol
fails to anticipate its claims)). We agree with Appellant.
CONCLUSION
The preponderance of evidence on this record fails to support
Examiner’s finding that Nicol teaches Appellant’s claimed invention. The
rejection of claims 1–5 and 7–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being
anticipated by Nicol is reversed.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 7–21 112(b) Indefiniteness 1–5, 7–21
1–5, 7–21 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) Nicol 1–5, 7–21
Overall
Outcome
1–5, 7–21

REVERSED