Appeal No. 2003-1965
Application 09/275,496
For claims 1 through 4 and 9 through 12, Appellant argues
that Buckner does not teach “a mechanism for comparing the data
packet sampled at preferred interval with the data packet sampled
at each of the neighboring intervals” as recited by independent
claim 1. See pages 7 through 16 of Appellant’s brief.
For claims 16 through 19, Appellant argues that Buckner does
not teach “comparing data in the preferred data path with data in
each of the neighboring paths” as recited in independent claim
16. See pages 17 through 20 of Appellant’s brief.
“Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under principles of inherency,
each and every element of a claimed invention.” RCA Corp. v.
Applied Digital Data Sys, Inc. 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385,
388 (Fed. Cir.), cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984), citing
Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781,
789 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
The Examiner argues that Buckner teaches in figure 6a a
comparison of each of the phases. See page 4 of the Examiner’s
answer.
Appellant argues that claims 1 through 4, 9 through 12 and
16 through 19 require that the data packets sampled at each of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007