Appeal No. 2000-1508 Page 15
Application No. 08/810,442
For its part, dependent claim 8 specifies in pertinent part
the following limitations: "the first and second computation
means receive neither keys nor program content from a source
apart from said single input." Giving the dependent claim its
broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations merely
require inter alia receiving keys and program content only via
the single port of claim 1.
“[H]aving ascertained exactly what subject matter is being
claimed, the next inquiry must be into whether such subject
matter is novel.” In re Wilder, 429 F2d 447, 450, 166 USPQ 545,
548 (CCPA 1970). “[A]nticipation is a question of fact.” Hyatt,
211 F.3d at 1371, 54 USPQ2d at 1667 (citing Bischoff v. Wethered,
76 U.S. (9 Wall.) 812, 814-15 (1869); In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d
1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “A claim is
anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the
claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a
single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil
Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987)
(citing Structural Rubber Prods. Co. v. Park Rubber Co., 749 F.2d
707, 715, 223 USPQ 1264, 1270 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Connell v. Sears,
Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548, 220 USPQ 193, 198 (Fed. Cir.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007