Appeal No. 1997-1060
Application No. 08/172,848
Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385,
388 (Fed. Cir.), cert. dismissed sub nom., Hazeltine Corp. v.
RCA Corp. , 468 U.S. 1228 (1984). However, the law of
anticipation does not require that the reference teach
specifically what an appellant has disclosed and is claiming.
Anticipation merely requires that the claims on appeal "read
on" something disclosed in the reference, i.e., all
limitations of the claim are found in the reference. See
Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ
781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
With the above in mind, we note that both Saito and the
appellant’s claim 11 are directed toward a method of testing a
semiconductor device that includes redundancy implementation.
More specifically, after careful review of appellant’s claim
11 and the teachings of Saito, we find that we are in general
agreement with the examiner (Office Action mailed April 6,
1995) that appellant’s limitation of “[a] method of testing a
semiconductor device to acquire information on redundant
elements” is taught in column 5, lines 55-68 and column 6,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007