Appeal No. 1997-2247 Page 12
Application No. 08/259,798
Kuo would have suggested the limitations. "[A]
disclosure that anticipates under Section 102 also renders the
claim invalid under Section 103, for 'anticipation is the
epitome of obviousness.'" Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.,
722 F.2d 1542, 1548, 220 USPQ 193, 198 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
(quoting In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 215 USPQ 569 (CCPA
1982)). In other words, obviousness follows from an
anticipatory reference. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data
Sys, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1446, 221 USPQ 385, 390 (Fed. Cir.
1984).
Here, Kuo teaches a precharge circuit for simultaneously
precharging both bit lines of a complementary pair of bitlines
to a precharge voltage. Specifically, "control logic 15
directs bit line precharge apparatus 13 ... to precharge bit
lines BL and BL* ... to a high logic state." Col. 6, ll. 58-
61. See also col. 7, ll. 19-21 ("Control logic 15 directs
precharge apparatus 13 to precharge bit lines BL and BL* to a
high logic state ...."); id. at ll. 44-45 ("The access
proceeds as a normal write access, with both data lines and
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007