Appeal No. 1999-2050 Page 6
Application No. 08/576,544
A prior art reference anticipates a claim only if
the reference discloses, either expressly or
inherently, every limitation of the claim. See
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." Kloster Speedsteel AB v.
Crucible, Inc., 793 F.2d 1565, 1571, 230 USPQ 81, 84
(Fed. Cir. 1986).
With this representation and these principles in mind, we
address the appellants' arguments.
Regarding claims 1-5, the appellants argue, "the Examiner
does not point out anywhere in the citation where means for
'activating parallel-arranged select lines of a memory' (as in
each of the independent claims) is described ...." (Reply Br.
at 2.) “In the patentability context, claims are to be given
their broadest reasonable interpretations. Moreover,
limitations are not to be read into the claims from the
specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184, 26
USPQ2d 1057, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1993)(citing In re Zletz, 893
F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). Here,
representative claim 1 specifies in pertinent part the
following limitations: "activating parallel-arranged select
lines of a memory ...." Giving the claim its broadest
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007