Appeal 2007-0576
Application 10/025,816
employed by a discipline: a particular procedure or set of procedures.''' (Br.
9.) Giving the limitations their ordinary and accustomed meaning, therefore,
the two independent claims require a single instruction that specifies a
sequence of testing procedures.
V. ANTICIPATION AND OBVIOUSNESS 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, 1270 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722
F.2d 1542, 1548, 220 USPQ 193, 198 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Kalman v. Kimberly-
Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 771, 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, Lo "us[es] a built in array test system that is programmable in
computer systems to enable testing of chip arrays whose address space has
two different logical views." (Col. 1, ll. 29-31.) More specifically, the
reference's "ABIST engine 12 receives a 9 bit word 13 from a Microcode
Array 10 which stores a set of test program codes scanned-in prior to
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013