Appeal No. 96-3902
Application 08/442,742
of section 112. We find that appellants have provided an adequate disclosure to support
the limitations set forth using the sixth paragraph of Section 112. Further, we find the
appellants have set forth the invention with a reasonable degree of particularity and
distinctness. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-7.
35 U.S.C. § 102
A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is
found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference. In re
Robertson 169 F.3d 743, 745, 49 USPQ2d 1949 ,1950 (Fed. Cir. 1999) citing
Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed.
Cir. 1987). The inquiry as to whether a reference anticipates a claim must focus on what
subject matter is encompassed by the claim and what subject matter is described by the
reference. As set forth by the Federal Circuit in Kalman v.
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), it is
only necessary for the claims to "'read on' something disclosed in the reference, i.e., all
limitations of the claim are found in the reference, or 'fully met' by it."
A close review of the Gabara patent clearly shows that Gabara does not disclose
that there is “an analog subsystem coupled to the digital subsystem . . . and an analog
signal at the input terminal thereof.” The Examiner argues that “[a]s is notoriously well
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007