Appeal No. 2002-1994
Application No. 09/364,449
original cache line allows Thatcher to perform the desired
formatting so that groups of bits are output from the remapped
cache line (id.).
A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires
that the four corners of a single prior art document describe
every element of the claimed invention, either expressly or
inherently, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art
could practice the invention without undue experimentation. See
Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d
1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-
79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The inquiry as to
whether a reference anticipates a claim must focus on what
subject matter is encompassed by the claim and what subject
matter is described by the reference. As set forth by the court
in Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ
781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), it is only necessary for the claims
to “‘read on’ something disclosed in the reference, i.e., all
limitations of the claim are found in the reference, or ‘fully
met’ by it.” Furthermore, anticipation requires a finding that
the claim at issue “reads on” a prior art reference. See also
Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d at 1346, 51 USPQ2d at
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007