Appeal No. 2002-2164
Application No. 09/067,599
the allegedly distinguishing feature argued by appellants. For a prior art reference to
anticipate in terms of 35 U.S.C. § 102, every element of the claimed invention must be
identically shown in a single reference, but this is not an “ipsissimis verbis” test. In re
Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832, 15 USPQ2d 1566, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Dosiere explicitly describes, in column 5, that the second memory contains a
head mask pattern, indicating the positions of bits to verify in bits preceding the first m-
bit set in the incoming bitstream, and a tail mask pattern, indicating the positions of bits
to verify in bits following the first m-bit set in the incoming bitstream. Appellants appear
to acknowledge the teachings, but argue (Brief at 6) that the reference “does not teach
mask data to identify the patterns to be matched against data,” alleging that the mask
data of Dosiere are “used differently from the mask data” recited in the instant claims.
Instant claim 15 recites that the second memory “stores mask data identifying
patterns in the first memory to be matched against the data....” Appellants do not
explain why the instant claims require something that is “used differently” from the mask
data described by the reference. We consider Dosiere’s description of mask data to
meet to the requirements of the instant claims, and see no reasonable basis for
appellants’ unexplained position.
Appellants contend that claims 16 and 20 are separately patentable in that they
require the number of marked patterns to be less than the total number of patterns in
the first memory. In appellants’ view, Dosiere does not disclose or suggest the subject
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007