Appeal 2007-1773
Application 10/107,776
the claimed invention. Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342,
1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1946 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475,
1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
ANALYSIS
As indicated supra, the access monitor 28 in Anderson determines if
the CPU 10 is authorized to access a subject device based on the address
signal of a subject device issued by the CPU. The identity of the CPU is not
used to determine access to the subject device.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Anticipation has not been established by the Examiner for claims 29,
30, 32, 36, 37, and 39 to 51 because Anderson does not use the identity of
the CPU to determine access to the subject device.
DECISION
The anticipation rejection of claims 29, 30, 32, 36, 37, and 39 to 51 is
reversed.
REVERSED
KIS
WILLIAMS, MORGAN & AMERSON
10333 RICHMOND, SUITE 1100
HOUSTON, TX 77042
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4
Last modified: September 9, 2013