Appeal No. 2002-1672
Application No. 09/412,124
description of a series of events that are set in motion or
“triggered” on the detection of a TE (triggering event). For
example, pages 20 and 21 describe the broadcast of data
externally from the processor when a TE is detected, while lines
10-22 at page 24 describe the data acquiring operation of the
trace acquisition buffer on recognition of a TE event.
While there is no question that Appellants have presented
very broad claims in defining their invention, it is well settled
that the breadth of a claim is not to be equated with
indefiniteness. In re Miller, 441 F.2d 689, 692, 169 USPQ 597,
600 (CCPA 1971). It is our view that the skilled artisan, having
considered the specification in its entirety, would have no
difficulty ascertaining the scope of the invention recited in
claims 1-8 and 12-22. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-8 and
12-22 under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is not
sustained.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) rejections of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 12, 17, 19, 20, and 22
based on each one of Circello and Argade, we do not sustain these
rejections as well. We note that anticipation is established
only when a single prior art reference discloses, expressly or
under the principles of inherency, each and every element of a
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007