Appeal No. 97-2470 Page 5
Application No. 08/201,817
It is our view that the applied reference does not anticipate
the invention of claims 1 through 21. Accordingly, we
reverse.
We begin our consideration of the novelty of the claims
by recalling that a prior art reference anticipates a claim
only if the reference discloses expressly or inherently every
limitation of the claim. Absence from the reference of any
claimed element negates anticipation. Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d
473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997). With this in
mind, we analyze the examiner’s rejection.
The examiner begins the rejection of claims 1 through 21
by noting Heil discloses a processor means, main memory means,
first bus adapted to be connected to bus master means and bus
slave means, second bus means adapted to be connected to bus
master and bus slave, and an interface module for transferring
addresses and data between the first and second buses.
(Examiner’s Answer, ¶ 9.) The interface module, further
observes the examiner, comprises data buffer means for
storing data being transferred between the buses, means for
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007