Source: http://www.ptab.us/2009/07/10316272-ex-parte-gray-et-al-10808007.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 08:25:51+00:00

Document:
Ex Parte Peitersen et al WARREN 103(a) ECOLAB INC.
Sakumoto et al. U.S. Patent 5,032,438 (1991).
Ex Parte Naitou et al GAUDETTE 103(a) OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, P.C.
Ex Parte Chen BAUMEISTER 103(a) THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC.
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference discloses, expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In other words, there must be no difference between the claimed invention and the reference disclosure, as viewed by a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention. Scripps Clinic & Research Found. v. Genentech Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1991). It is not necessary that the reference teach what the subject application teaches, but only that the claim read on something disclosed in the reference, i.e., that all of the limitations in the claim be found in or fully met by the reference. Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
“If a claim covers material not found in any of the four statutory categories, that claim falls outside the plainly expressed scope of § 101 even if the subject matter is otherwise new and useful.” In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “A transitory, propagating signal . . . is not a ‘process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter’ [under 35 U.S.C. § 101]” and therefore does not constitute patentable subject matter under § 101. Id. at 1357.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 101
 § 101
 § 101