Appeal 2007-0642
Application 10/267,877
F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), it is only necessary for
the claims to “‘read on’ something disclosed in the reference, i.e., all
limitations of the claim are found in the reference, or ‘fully met’ by it.”
While all elements of the claimed invention must appear in a single
reference, additional references may be used to interpret the anticipating
reference and to shed light on its meaning, particularly to those skilled in the
art at the relevant time. See Studiengesellschaft Kohle, M.B.H. v. Dart
Indus., Inc., 726 F.2d 724, 726-27, 220 USPQ 841, 842-43 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
With respect to independent claim 1, Appellants argue that Wallace
does not discuss the operation control port and a booting prevention signal to
said operation control port (Br. 9-11). We disagree with Appellants and find
that Wallace teaches the use of a port for communication between various
elements in the system. While not expressly shown in the drawings,
Wallace describes at column 7, lines 10-15, that the power monitor 370
indicates a failure of power and has an interface to the microprocessor 363 to
generate an interrupt or allow polling. Therefore, Wallace contains
communication between the various units.
Similarly, Wallace states, at column 8, lines 39-43, that upon power
restoration, the changes must be reversed without requiring a full retrain.
Here, we find that there would be some required communication between
the Discrete Multi-Tone (DMT) modem 364 (with a Digital Signal Processor
(DSP)) and the microprocessor 363 to allow the modem to either fully
retrain or limit the retraining of the modem. The Examiner has identified the
modem 364 as the main controller and the microprocessor 363 as the sub-
controller (Answer 4). We agree with the Examiner’s correlation of
independent claim 1 to the teachings of Wallace.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013