Appeal No. 2002-1305 Page 7
Application No. 09/327,966
"[T]here is no anticipation 'unless all of the same elements are found in exactly
the same situation and united in the same way . . . in a single prior art reference.'"
Perkin-Elmer Corp. v. Computervision Corp., 732 F.2d 888, 894, 221 USPQ 669, 673
(Fed. Cir. 1984) (citing Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 771, 218 USPQ
781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Here, the examiner interprets the reference's test vectors as
the claimed coverage items and Shupe's time slots as the claimed triggering events.
(Examiner's Answer at 4-5.) To anticipate the claimed limitations based on these two
interpretations, the reference would have to respond to its time slots by determining a
state of at least one of its test vectors. Although Shupe does respond to the time slots
by determining states, we are unpersuaded that the responsively determined states are
those of the test vectors. To the contrary, the reference responds to its time slots by
determining states of the circuit described by its circuit description 34. Specifically, a
"state sampler 52 checks the state of every pin and thereby measures the sensitivity of
each circuit element." Col. 12, ll. 31-33. Therefore, we reverse the anticipation
rejection of claim 1 and of claims 2-6 and 8-18, which depend therefrom; of claim 16;
and of claim 19 and of claim 20, which depends therefrom.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007