Appeal No. 2004-0442
Application No. 09/222,953
page 6) that "'register' and 'latch' are alternative terms or
labels for referring [sic, to] a storage device." Appellant
argues (Brief, page 7) that the examiner has failed to establish
anticipation since the examiner has admitted that Ono discloses
an alternative to the claimed register rather than the register
itself. We agree.
"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." In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ
136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See also Lindemann Maschinenfabrik
GMBH v. American Hoist and Derrick, 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ
481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Claims 1, 6, 11, and 17 all require a
register. Ono discloses a latch circuit, not a register.
Although registers and latches are both types of storage and both
may be comprised of flip flops, they are not the same. A
register is a high-speed memory location in a computer's CPU used
to store digits, whereas a latch is a digital logic circuit
having a data input, a clock input, and an output and is used to
store a state. Therefore, the disclosure of a latch does not
anticipate the claimed register. Accordingly, we cannot sustain
the anticipation rejection of claims 1, 6, 11, and 17 and their
dependents, claims 4, 9, and 20.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007