Appeal 2007-1754
Application 09/943,599
We first consider the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, and 5 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Mann. Anticipation is
established only when a single prior art reference discloses, expressly or
under the principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed
invention as well as disclosing structure which is capable of performing the
recited functional limitations. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems,
Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984); W.L. Gore
and Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303,
313 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
The Examiner has indicated how the claimed invention is deemed to
be fully met by the disclosure of Mann (Answer 4-6). Regarding
independent claim 1, Appellants argue that Mann fails to identify a program
counter value and express this program counter value as an offset which
indicates the number of program counter values in the program counter trace
stream by which the corresponding program counter value is offset from the
synchronization marker in the program counter trace stream as claimed (Br.
11). Appellants emphasize that the operation of synchronization marker
“TSYNC”5 fails to anticipate the claimed synchronization marker since,
among other things, the trace address values following such a marker are not
offset from the synchronization marker value. Rather, the trace address
values are offset from the prior and unchanged segment base address (Br.
13-15).
5 “TSYNC” is a synchronization register that allows injection of
synchronizing address information (Mann, col. 16, ll. 3-5). See also p. 7,
infra, of this opinion.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013