Appeal No. 95-0933
Application 08/032,764
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).
Appellants argue on page 6 of the brief that Appellants'
claims recite packing multidigit operands into a packed word
with at least one buffer bit between each of the multidigit
operands. Appellants argue on page 7 of the brief that buffer
bit is defined on page 3, line 33, through page 4, line 10, as
a bit of data stored between operands to prevent the
propagation of a bit of data from flowing into bits of another
operand during
arithmetic or logical operations. Appellants then argue that
Bertrand fails to teach the buffer bit stored between operands
to prevent the propagation of a bit of data from flowing into
bits of another operand during arithmetic or logical
operations as claimed.
When interpreting a claim, words of the claim are
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007