Appeal No. 1996-4025
Application 07/995,591
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we
do not agree with the Examiner that claims 29 and 30 are
properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102, nor do we agree with
the Examiner that claims 1, 3 through 6, 8, 11 through 15, 18,
and 23 through 26 are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
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
discloses, expressly or under principles of inherency, each
and every element of a
claimed invention." RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys.,
Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.),
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007