Appeal No. 1997-1924
Application No. 08/244,633
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the
Examiner, we make reference to the brief, reply brief and the
answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we do
not agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is anticipated under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) by Kawamura.
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 Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007