Appeal No. 96-2520
Application 07/891,852
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we
agree with the Examiner that claims 4 and 5 are anticipated
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Sotome '124. However, we do not
agree with the Examiner that claim 12 is properly rejected
under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102.
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). "Anticipation
is established only when a single prior art reference
5(...continued)
over Sotome '124 and Graham. The Examiner responded to the
first reply brief with a supplemental Examiner's answer,
mailed November 21, 1995. We will refer to the supplemental
Examiner's answer as the first supplemental answer. The
Examiner mailed another supplemental
Examiner's answer on February 11, 1997. We will refer to this
supplemental Examiner's answer as the second supplemental
answer.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007