Opinion ID: 707594
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Federal Circuit's Jurisdiction

Text: 9 We next must determine whether the applicant's 4 January notice of appeal was effective to give this court jurisdiction. We always have jurisdiction to determine our jurisdiction. See In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 1530, 31 USPQ2d 1545, 1546 (Fed.Cir.1994) (in banc) (discussing this court's duty to ensure it has jurisdiction). The issue here concerns whether the applicant filed his notice of appeal too early to be effective. The deadline for filing a notice of appeal based upon that 20 January decision expired 21 March 1995, i.e., two months and one day after 20 January. Thus, the applicant filed the notice of appeal not only before the deadline, but also more than two weeks before the Board rendered the only decision on which the appeal could be based under the facts of this case. 10 Timeliness of an appeal of an agency order to this court is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure (FRAP) 15(a), which merely states that the appeal must be filed within the time prescribed by law. Fed.R.App.P. 15(a). The applicable section of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 1.304(a)(1), 6 is also unclear as to the date before which an applicant may not file an effective notice of appeal to this court. In the absence of a clear legislative command, we will not, on the facts of this case, deny the applicant the right to appeal a final Board decision to this court. 11 When an applicant files a notice of appeal after filing a Rule 197(b) request and before the Board has rendered its decision in response to that request, and when no appealable decision exists when the applicant files the notice of appeal, the mere filing of the notice does not deprive the Board of jurisdiction to render its reconsideration decision and the applicant has filed the notice within the time prescribed by law. We, however, cannot exercise jurisdiction over the appeal before the Board enters its reconsideration decision on the Rule 197(b) request. 12 The notice of appeal in the instant case ripened into an effective appeal on 20 January 1995 upon the disposition of the applicant's request for reconsideration, wherein the Board refused to modify its original opinion. Our jurisdiction to hear the appeal was, in effect, suspended until the Board acted upon the Rule 197(b) request for reconsideration and rendered its reconsideration decision. 7 We conclude that, under the facts of this case, we have jurisdiction to consider the merits of this appeal. II The Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. Sec. 102(b) 13 Anticipation under section 102(b) is a factual determination, which we review under the clearly erroneous standard. See, e.g., In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 390, 21 USPQ2d 1281, 1283 (Fed.Cir.1991) (citing In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833, 15 USPQ2d 1566, 1567 (Fed.Cir.1990)). What a prior art reference teaches is also a question of fact that we review under the clearly erroneous standard. See, e.g., In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed.Cir.1995) (citing In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1311, 24 USPQ2d 1040, 1041 (Fed.Cir.1992)). A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395, 68 S.Ct. 525, 542, 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948). A. The Rejection of Claims 4 and 6 14 Our first task on the merits is to decide whether the PTO's rejection of claims 4 and 6 under section 102(b), as being anticipated by Rockwell, was proper. Claims 4 and 6 read as follows: 15 4. A test system and method for testing the integrity of the interconnections of electronic systems by testing for continuity from each point on the interconnect of an electronic system under test simultaneously to multiple selected power, ground and other connection points or wires, comprising the steps of: 16 (a) controllably applying a test signal sequencially [sic] to each point on the interconnect of the electronic system under test; 17 (b) simultaneously monitoring the selected multiple connection points or wires for presence of the test signal which is applied sequencially [sic] to each point on the interconnect of the system under test; 18 (c) identifying each interconnect point and selected multiple connection point or wire which are connected or shorted together; and 19 (d) comparing test data to records of the system under test for errors. 20 6. An automatic test system for testing the integrity of the interconnections of electronic systems versus selected multiple connection points or wires using a continuity test technique, comprising: 21 (a) a testpoint select and control circuit portion for controllably applying a test signal sequencially [sic] to single points on the interconnect of an electronic system under test; 22 (b) a processor interface circuit portion for interfacing a processor to both the testpoint select and control circuit and the multiple selected connection points or wires; 23 (c) a processor portion for performing automatic testing; 24 (d) a computer program portion for system operation and control[;] 25 (e) a recording device portion such as a printer for data collection; and 26 (f) a power source portion for supplying electrical power to said testpoint select and control circuit portion, the processor interface circuit portion, the processor portion and the recording device portion. 27 The Board found that Rockwell teaches continuity testing of wire harnesses and using scanners to apply test signals and to monitor their presence. According to the Board, Rockwell teaches obtaining test data and comparing it to known good data. The Board also found that Rockwell describes an interface adapter, a processor unit, a read-only memory, a recorder, a frequency shifted key modulator, and a power supply. In view of the above, the Board concluded that Rockwell meets all of the limitations of claims 4 and 6 and thereby anticipates these claims. We agree and accordingly affirm the rejection. 28 The dissent expresses the view that Rockwell fails to teach element (b) of claim 4. This raises two issues: proper construction of claim 4 and what Rockwell teaches. 29 As construed by the dissent, element (b) requires the simultaneous monitoring of each of multiple connection points or wires (i.e., each of multiple output points). The Board, on the other hand, construed element (b) to require the simultaneous monitoring of input and output points, but not necessarily the simultaneous monitoring of an input point and multiple output points. We conclude that the Board properly gave claim 4 as broad a reading as possible not inconsistent with the applicant's disclosure. See, e.g., DeGeorge v. Bernier, 768 F.2d 1318, 226 USPQ 758 (Fed.Cir.1985) (Claims during prosecution ... are also given the broadest reasonable interpretation possible, consistent with the specification. Id. at 1322 n. 2, 226 USPQ at 761 n. 2 (citing In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 222 USPQ 934 (Fed.Cir.1984))); In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed.Cir.1983). 30 Even assuming, however, that the dissent's construction of claim 4 is correct, Rockwell nevertheless anticipates claim 4, even if it does not specifically disclose simultaneous monitoring of the output points, if simultaneous or parallel monitoring is within the knowledge of a skilled artisan. See, e.g., In re LeGrice, 301 F.2d 929, 133 USPQ 365 (CCPA 1962) (A reference anticipates a claim if it discloses the claimed invention such that a skilled artisan could take its teachings in combination with his own knowledge of the particular art and be in possession of the invention. Id. at 936, 133 USPQ at 372 (emphasis in original)); In re Donohue, 766 F.2d 531, 533, 226 USPQ 619, 621 (Fed.Cir.1985) (same) (citing In re LeGrice, 301 F.2d at 939, 133 USPQ at 373-74). Even the applicant, in item 12 of his request for reconsideration of the Board's 30 September 1994 decision, stated that one with knowledge of basic electronics and simple logic would understand the difference between the operation of the series circuit of Rockwell and the parallel circuit of the claimed invention. Thus, even under the dissent's construction of claim 4, the Board correctly held that a skilled artisan could take Rockwell's teachings in combination with his own knowledge and be in possession of the device of applicant's claim 4. 31 In summary, we find that the Board's claim construction is reasonable, and its determination of what Rockwell teaches is not clearly erroneous. We cannot say, therefore, that the Board's conclusion that Rockwell anticipates claims 4 and 6 is clearly erroneous. B. The Rejection of Claim 5 32 Next, we must decide whether the PTO's rejection of claim 5 under section 102(b), as being anticipated by Coben, was proper. Claim 5 reads as follows: 33 5. An electronic continuity test equipment group, comprising: 34 (a) means for controllably applying a test signal sequencially [sic] to single points on the interconnect of an electronic system under test; 35 (b) means for simultaneously indicating the presence of a test signal on any selected multiple connection points or wires caused by applying said test signal to single points on the interconnect of an electronic system under test; 36 and 37 (c) means for supplying electrical power to portions of said test equipment group. 38 The Board found that Coben teaches testing of short circuits among electrical contact points by using electronic continuity test equipment to apply test signals to the electrical cable under test to determine all of the end-to-end connections within that cable, a battery, and light emitting diodes. In view of the above, the Board found that Coben meets all of the limitations of claim 5. Again, we agree and affirm the rejection. III