Appeal No. 96-0609
Application No. 08/024,803
F.2d 230, 232, 132 USPQ 6, 8 (CCPA 1961); In re Cofer, 354
F.2d 664, 668, 148 USPQ 268, 271-72 (CCPA 1966). Therefore,
we find that the Examiner failed to establish why one having
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the claimed
invention by teachings or suggestions found in the prior art.
We now turn to the rejection of claims 20 and 21 as being
anticipated by Moran. It is axiomatic that anticipation of a
claim under § 102 can be found only if the prior art reference
discloses every element of the claim. See In re King, 801
F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and
Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick
Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
On page 2 of the reply brief, Appellants argue that Moran
does not teach a plurality of shift registers as claimed. We
note that claim 20 recites "transferring in one cycle of the
central memory, the block (bi) from said central memory (RAM)
to one memory shift register (RDMj) of a set of shift
registers (RDM . . . RDM . . . RDM ) connected to said1 j n
central memory." Furthermore, we note that claim 21 recites,
transferring the block (bi) from said
associated cache memory (MC ) to a
j
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007