Appeal No. 2006-1729
Application No. 10/107,628
I. Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), is the Rejection of Claims 1,
6, 11, 15, 22 and 26 as Being Anticipated By Ivanov Proper?
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can
be found only if the prior art reference discloses every element
of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136,
138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v.
American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481,
485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
With respect to representative claim 1, Appellants argue in
the Appeal and Reply Briefs that the Ivanov reference does not
disclose a compactor characterized by matrix having a row for
each of the plurality of circuit elements and a column for each
of the plurality of outputs. Regarding representative claim 22,
Appellants argue that the Ivanov reference does not teach that an
x-OR gate is placed between each input and at least an output,
wherein each of said inputs is coupled to said outputs
differently.
To determine whether claims 1 and 22 are anticipated, we
must first determine the scope of the claims. We note that claim
1 reads in part as follows:
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007