Appeal No. 2003-0553 Page 5
Application No. 09/137,285
Here, claim 1 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "[a] link for
connecting a computer system, including a processor, with a peripheral comprising:
a first connector that couples to said system; a second connector that couples to said
peripheral; a first device that checks a code received through said first connector from
said second connector; a second device that provides a code to said first device
through said first and second connector. . . ." Giving the claim its broadest, reasonable
construction, the limitations require a link between a computer system and a peripheral,
the link including a first device connected to a second device via a fist connector and a
second connector, wherein the second device is coupled to a peripheral and provides a
code to the first device and the first device checks the code.
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 claim
is anticipated only 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 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548, 220
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007