Appeal No. 2000-1508 Page 15 Application No. 08/810,442 For its part, dependent claim 8 specifies in pertinent part the following limitations: "the first and second computation means receive neither keys nor program content from a source apart from said single input." Giving the dependent claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations merely require inter alia receiving keys and program content only via the single port of claim 1. “[H]aving ascertained exactly what subject matter is being claimed, the next inquiry must be into whether such subject matter is novel.” In re Wilder, 429 F2d 447, 450, 166 USPQ 545, 548 (CCPA 1970). “[A]nticipation is a question of fact.” Hyatt, 211 F.3d at 1371, 54 USPQ2d at 1667 (citing Bischoff v. Wethered, 76 U.S. (9 Wall.) 812, 814-15 (1869); In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (citing Structural Rubber Prods. Co. v. Park Rubber Co., 749 F.2d 707, 715, 223 USPQ 1264, 1270 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548, 220 USPQ 193, 198 (Fed. Cir.Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007