Ex Parte Deshpande et al - Page 11

                   Appeal 2006-0016                                                                                                   
                   Application 10/347,536                                                                                             


                           Here, claims 37 and 60 recite in pertinent part the following                                              
                   limitations: "blocking transactions that collide with said Read transaction                                        
                   from being received by said processor during processing of said Read                                               
                   transaction. . . ."  Considering these limitations, the independent claims                                         
                   require blocking colliding transactions from being received by a processor                                         
                   that requested a Read transaction.                                                                                 

                                              B. 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]n invention is anticipated if the same device,                                         
                   including all the claim limitations, is shown in a single prior art reference.                                     
                   Every element of the claimed invention must be literally present, arranged as                                      
                   in the claim."  Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236,                                               
                   9 USPQ2d 1913, 1920 (Fed.Cir. 1989) (citing Perkin-Elmer Corp. v.                                                  
                   Computervision Corp., 732 F.2d 888, 894, 221 USPQ 669, 673 (Fed. Cir.                                              
                   1984);  Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 771-72, 218 USPQ                                             
                   781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).  "[A]bsence from the reference of any claimed                                          
                   element negates anticipation." Kloster Speedsteel AB v. Crucible, Inc., 793                                        
                   F.2d 1565, 1571, 230 USPQ 81, 84 (Fed. Cir. 1986).                                                                 

                           Here, Donaldson describes "[a] cache coherency protocol for a multi-                                       
                   processor system which provides for read/write, read-only and transitional                                         
                   data states and for an indication of these states to be stored in a memory                                         

                                                                 11                                                                   

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013