Appeal No. 1997-2984 Page 5
Application No. 08/259,967
Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053
(Fed. Cir. 1987). ‘[A]bsence from the reference of any claimed
element negates anticipation.’” Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478,
42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997)(quoting Kloster Speedsteel
AB v. Crucible, Inc., 793 F.2d 1565, 1571, 230 USPQ 81, 84 (Fed.
Cir. 1986)).
Here, Wilson describes “[a] power supply circuit for
converting a digital signal to a [direct current] DC voltage
....” Col. 1, ll. 65-66. Although “[a] pair of input lines 20
and 21 [of the reference’s power supply circuit] are coupled to
receive digital input signals labeled Tx(+) and Tx(-),” col. 2,
ll. 8-10, neither of the input signals is a clock signal. To the
contrary, both are data signals. Specifically, “[t]he
differential signal lines ... carry digital data ....” Abs.,
ll. 2-4.
Because neither of the signals inputted to Wilson’s power
supply circuit is a clock signal, we are not persuaded that the
applied prior art discloses the limitations of "receiving, on a
bus input, at least one data signal, a first clock signal, a
first system potential, and a second system potential; producing
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007