Appeal No. 2001-0164
Application No. 08/885,379
page 3, lines 13-15. Appellants argue that Bealkowski does not
disclose the above-recited repeat step. See Appeal Brief on page
6, lines 16-21.
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).
Upon review, we find that Bealkowski does not disclose the
element, "if all sources are checked and none are both
operational and has a valid boot format, having the CPU repeat
the aforementioned sequential search of the possible operating
system sources," of claim 1. Bealkowski discloses in Figure 6A,
in column 4, lines 6-7 and in column 10, lines 1-4 a method for
booting operating system software into main memory of a CPU that
includes the step of having the system halt if the routine is not
able to load the boot record from all the sources (fixed disk or
a diskette). In contrast, claim 1 recites that if all sources
are checked and none are operational and have a valid boot format
the CPU repeats the sequential search of the possible operating
system sources.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007