Appeal No. 2002-1173
Application No. 09/510,640
point where the dip occurred. There is no predetermined state,
such as those defined in a reset, that the integrated circuit is
to be set at before any other instructions begin. Absent any
statement in the specification to the contrary, the claims simply
require that the operation during which the dip in the supply
voltage happened, be performed again after the supply voltage
returns to the normal level.
However, based on a review of the record before us, we find
that the Examiner incorrectly corresponds the claimed “repeating
operations of the integrated circuit” to “continuing to provide
the operation that was provided for” since “repeating” is not the
same as “continuing.” Additionally, we disagree with the
Examiner’s position that the claimed “repeating the operation”
does not require reconstruction of the operation and therefore,
reads on generating the reset signal of Hsieh (answer, page 6).
In fact, the Examiner appears to have overlooked the ordinary
meaning of the term “repeating” which requires that the affected
operation be simply performed again.
A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that
each and every limitation of the claimed invention be disclosed
in a single prior art reference. See Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco
Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999);
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007