Appeal No. 2003-1225
Application No. 09/223,765
OPINION
Appellants allege that differences exist between the instant disclosure and the
disclosure of Carroll. (Brief at 10-12.) As for what is claimed,1 appellants quote three
lines from instant claim 1, then allege there is no disclosure or suggestion in Carroll
regarding the “vs Supervisor Init and Service functions” or “their allegedly inherent
characteristic flowing from Carroll.” (Id. at 12-13.)
The arguments are unhelpful in identifying any distinguishing features that may
reside in claim 1. We acknowledge, as does the examiner, that Carroll does not use all
the terminology found in the claim. That finding, however, is not the end of the inquiry.
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).
The claim recites “a supervisor performing vsSupervisor Initialize and
vsSupervisor Service functions” for handling a number of process types. Appellants do
not tell us what requirements of the claimed “functions” might be thought missing from
the reference.
Appellants’ specification (pages 4-5) describes the related application which
issued as the Carroll patent. The specification notes a need for a vault controller which
1 The claims measure the invention. SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121, 227
USPQ 577, 585 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc).
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007