Appeal No. 2003-1227
Application No. 09/049,161
Claims 11-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Anderson.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under the principles of
inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention as well
as disclosing structure which is capable of performing the
recited functional limitations. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital
Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed.
Cir.); cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L. Gore and
Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303,
313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
In accordance with the grouping of the claims, at page 4 of
the principal brief, all claims will stand or fall together.
Thus, we will focus on independent claim 11.
With regard to claim 11, the examiner applies Anderson
against the claims in the following manner:
A system bus is said to be shown at Figure 2b3-2 (this is
-3–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007