Appeal 2007-1597
Application 10/887,525
location (Reply Br. 3, ¶ 1). Appellants further argue that the Examiner’s
broad interpretation of the word “at’ in the claim improperly makes the
isolation performed at PHB 306 and Bridge Chip 308 one and the same
(Reply Br. 4, ¶ 4).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a single prior art reference
that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a claim
invalidates that claim by anticipation. Perricone v. Medicis Pharm., 432
F.3d 1368, 1375-76, 77 USPQ2d 1321, 1325-26 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing
Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Johnson & Johnson Orthopaedics, Inc., 976
F.2d 1559, 1565, 24 USPQ2d 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). Anticipation of
a patent claim requires a finding that the claim at issue “reads on” a prior art
reference. Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1346, 51
USPQ2d 1943, 1945 (Fed Cir. 1999) (“In other words, if granting patent
protection on the disputed claim would allow the patentee to exclude the
public from practicing the prior art, then that claim is anticipated, regardless
of whether it also covers subject matter not in the prior art.”) (internal
citations omitted).
We begin our analysis by performing an electronic search of the entire
Specification. We find the literal language “at a host bridge” recited only
within claim 10. In contrast, we find the more precise language “in a host
bridge” in three separate places within the Specification, as follows:
The data processing system includes a plurality of
input/output adapters, and isolation of interrupt resources
available to the input/output adapters is controlled by
functionality in a host bridge that connects the plurality
of input/output adapters to a system bus of the data
processing system … [emphasis added].
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013