Appeal No. 2000-1282
Application No. 08/813,140
Reference is made to the brief (paper number 25) and the
answer (paper number 26) for the respective positions of the
appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims
1 through 3, 8 through 12, 25 through 27 and 31 through 34,
and the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 4 through 7,
13 through 24, 28 through 30 and 35 through 46.
To anticipate a claim, a single prior art reference must
disclose each and every limitation of the claim. Glaxo Inc.
v. Novopharm Ltd., 52 F.3d 1043, 1047, 34 USPQ2d 1565, 1567
(Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 3378 (1995).
According to the appellants (brief, page 8), the first
and second portions of the claimed digital memory are used as
follows:
Thus, in the invention recited in the claims, in
a first phase, data stored in the second portion is
error encoded/corrected, while in the first portion
raw and encoded/corrected data are written and read,
respectively. Thus, the second portion is used as a
workspace for error encoding/correcting, and the
first portion is used as a buffer. In the second
phase, data stored in the first portion is error
encoded/corrected,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007