Appeal No. 2001-2692 Page 13
Application No. 08/789,001
parte Gambogi, 62 USPQ2d 1209, 1211 (Bd.Pat.App. & Int. 2001). Furthermore,
"absence from the reference of any claimed element negates anticipation." Kloster
Speedsteel AB v. Crucible, Inc., 793 F.2d 1565, 1571, 230 USPQ 81, 84 (Fed. Cir.
1986).
Here, the examiner does not allege, let alone show, that the reference discloses
the aforementioned limitations. We will not resort to speculation as to such a possible
disclosure. Therefore, we reverse the anticipation rejection of claim 3 by Modarres.
Anticipation Rejection of Claims 1-35 by Aubertine
We address the four points of contention between the examiner and the
appellants. First, the examiner cites "col. 6, line 22 to col. 8, line 43" of Aubertine.
(Examiner's Answer at 7.) Observing that "[c]laim 1 is an independent apparatus claim
limited to the combination of three (3) elements," (Appeal Br. at 28), the appellants
argue, "[t]he Examiner has not alleged that any of the prior art has any of this [sic]
elements." (Id.) As construed in addressing the rejection by Modarres, claim 1 requires
assembling a circuit design in accordance with parameters provided by a user and
predefined circuit design rules.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007