Appeal No. 2002-1527 Page 6
Application No. 08/885,817
Here, claim 1 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "a processor for
controlling packet routing. . . ." Despite the appellants' argument, the claim does not
require a router per se.4 Giving the claim its broadest, reasonable construction, the
limitations merely specify a processor for routing a packet.
2. Anticipation Determination
"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]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 . . .
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
4Assuming arguendo that the claim did require a router per se, "[a]n anticipatory
reference . . . need not duplicate word for word what is in the claims. Anticipation can
occur when a claimed limitation is 'inherent' or otherwise implicit in the relevant
reference." Standard Havens Prods., Inc. v. Gencor Indus., Inc., 953 F.2d 1360, 1369,
21 USPQ2d 1321, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing Tyler Refrigeration v. Kysor Indus.
Corp., 777 F.2d 687, 689, 227 USPQ 845, 846-47 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). Here, the
appellants admit that "[r]outers are . . . implicit in Aziz." (Supp. Appeal Br. at 8.)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007