Opinion ID: 771323
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Claims 17, 18, and 24-26

Text: 65 As noted above, having found claims 1 and 23 anticipated by Adobe Photoshop, the court concluded that the remaining asserted claims, all dependent from claims 1 and 23, were similarly anticipated. On appeal, Apple argues that the court erred in not separately considering the validity of each asserted claim. As also noted above, we agree with Apple that the court should have separately considered each claim. Nonetheless, there is ample evidence to affirm the district court's judgment that the remaining claims are anticipated by Adobe Photoshop. 66 Dependent claims 17, 18, and 24-26 are all very similar to the independent claims 1 and 23, and the additional limitations in these dependent claims are all found in Adobe Photoshop. Claims 17 and 24 recite an additional limitation of a selective positioning feature. It is uncontested that the palette and the drawing window of Adobe Photoshop may each be positioned selectively. Claim 25 includes the additional limitation that said first layer is a highest window layer and second layer is a next-to-highest window layer. It is equally uncontested that the drawing window and palette of Adobe Photoshop meet this limitation. Finally, claims 18 and 26 further require the generation of a third window at a third window layer, where the third window is inactive when the first and second windows are active. It is uncontested that Adobe Photoshop also meets this requirement. 67 Accordingly, we see no error in the district court's ultimate conclusion that Adobe Photoshop anticipates claims 17, 18, and 24-26. This judgment of the district court is affirmed.