Appeal No. 2004-1573 Page 5
Application No. 09/494,780
Cir. 1987). In answering the question, "[t]he Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) must
consider all claim limitations when determining patentability of an invention over the
prior art." In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1582, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1034 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
(citing In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 403-04 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
Here, independent claim 1 recites in pertinent part the following limitations:
"utilizing for at least two of the data channels of the connection one common training
sequence. . . ." Similarly, independent claim 11 recites in pertinent part the following
limitations: "a signal processor using for at least two of the data channels of the
connection one common training sequence. . . ." Considering these limitations, claims 1
and 11 require using a single training sequence for at least two of the data channels of
a radio communication connection.
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,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007