Appeal No. 2002-1498
Application No. 09/042,202
credit value....” Accordingly, while it may be a bit awkward to
have the antecedent basis for a recited limitation appear
subsequent to, rather than previous to, the recited limitation,
the instant claim language does, “in fact, set out and
circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable degree of
precision and particularity.” Accordingly, since the artisan
would have clearly understood the nature of the invention from
the instant claim language and would clearly have understood as
to which limitation “the step of transferring” referred, we will
not sustain the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 112, second
paragraph.
Under 35 U.S.C. 102, a reference must disclose, explicitly
or implicitly, every limitation of the claimed invention. Glaxo
Inc. v. Novopharm Ltd., 52 F.3d 1043, 1047, 34 USPQ2d 1565, 1567
(Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 988 (1995).
Barkey clearly discloses a credit-based flow control system
wherein an initial credit value is loaded into a debit register
resident on a second node. In Figure 1, element 34, equivalent
to the claimed “debit register,” within receiver 14, i.e., second
node, is loaded with an initial credit value of n (column 4,
lines 39-41). The issue, as we view it, is whether Barkey
discloses “transferring the initial credit value into the credit
-6–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007