Appeal No. 1997-4127 Page 5
Application No. 08/044,241
the examiner erred in rejecting claims 15-17 and 19-21.
Accordingly, we reverse.
We begin by recalling that “[a] prior art reference
anticipates a claim only if the reference discloses, either
expressly or inherently, every limitation of the claim.”
Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed.
Cir. 1997) (citing Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814
F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
“‘[A]bsence from the reference of any claimed element negates
anticipation.’" Id., 42 USPQ2d at 1553 (quoting Kloster
Speedsteel (AB v. Crucible, Inc., 793 F.2d 1565, 1571, 230
USPQ 81, 84 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). With this in mind, we address
the appellants’ argument.
The appellants argue, “There is no mention in Stewart of
the partitioning of critical ‘primary boot code’ into ‘a ROM’
while more maturing ‘other boot code and other system code’ is
stored in ‘a flash ROM.’” (Appeal Br. at 12.) They add,
“Stewart does not select between the motherboard system ROM
and boot card based on ‘when a cycle is executed to said
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007