Appeal No. 2001-0529 Page 5
Application No. 08/846,600
Cir. 1993) (citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir.
1989)).
Here, claim 19 specifies in pertinent part the following limitations: "fourth means
for storing programming instructions that, when read by the processing device, causes
the processing device to generate a set of texel addresses for a particular point of one
of the plurality of spans. . . ." Giving the claim its broadest, reasonable construction, the
limitations require generating a set of texel addresses for a particular point of one of a
plurality of spans.
"Having construed the claim limitations at issue, we now compare the claim[] to
the prior art to determine if the prior art anticipates th[e] claim[]." In re Cruciferous
Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1349, 64 USPQ2d 1202, 1206 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
"[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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007