Appeal No. 95-4968
Application 08/074,518
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we do not
agree with the Examiner that claims 1 and 4 are anticipated by
the applied reference.
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can
be found only if the prior art reference discloses every element
of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136,
138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v.
American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481,
485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Appellant's claim 1 recites:
field of induction calculating means for calculating a
field of induction on the retina of the character image
input from said input means; and
character recognizing means for recognizing a character
base on difference between fields of induction on the
retina of different character images calculated by said
field of induction calculating means, by quantitatively
evaluating a magnitude of a strain generated when the
field of induction of one character image deforms to be
matched with the field of induction of another
character image.
Appellants argue on pages 6 and 7 of the brief, filed
December 21, 1994, that Foote fails to teach the Appellant's
claimed limitations as required under 35 U.S.C. § 102. In
particular, Appellants argue that Foote does not disclose a field
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007