A. Principles of Law “Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 a claim is anticipated ‘if each and every limitation is found either expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference.’” King Pharm., Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Celeritas Techs.
“Anticipation requires the presence in a single prior art disclosure of all elements of a claimed invention arranged as in the claim.” Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 593 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
Moreover, as pointed out by Patent Owner (see Prelim. Resp. 25), Petitioner’s position is undermined by and inconsistent with its arguments that the Joint Proposal’s data field discloses “data configured in a second format compatible with a second communication system,” as recited in
These arguments addressing the patentability challenge based on Mujtaba are directly in opposition to Petitioner’s position that the Joint Proposal’s legacy signal field (L-SIG) discloses data configured in a first format compatible with a first communication system.
Based on the record before us, Petitioner does not set forth sufficient argument and evidence to demonstrate that the Joint Proposal’s legacy signal field (L-SIG) discloses “data configured in a first format compatible with a first communication system using symbols,” as recited in limitation 8[a] in accordance with the plain and ordinary meaning for “data.” b.