Appeal No. 2002-1305 Page 6
Application No. 09/327,966
"Having construed the claim limitations at issue, we now compare the claims to
the prior art to determine if the prior art anticipates those claims." In re Cruciferous
Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1349, 64 USPQ2d 1202, 1206 (Fed. Cir. 2002). "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. 1983); Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 771,
218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
Here, Shupe discloses "a 'two-pass' simulation algorithm employed by logic
simulator 48 to apply the test program 46 to the circuit description 34 and execute the
single-level fault simulation." Col. 12, ll. 39-42. "This [circuit] description 34 includes
identification of the circuit elements and how they are interconnected." Col. 11, ll. 66-
68. For its part, the "test program 46 compris[es] a set of test vectors or patterns to be
applied to the primary inputs of circuit 36." Id. at ll. 7-9. "At the start of the logic
simulation, the simulator 48 converts the test patterns in the program 46 into 'events'
and schedules the events into a time wheel. The time wheel is divided into slots
representing time steps. . . ." Id. at ll. 54-58.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007