Appeal No. 1998-0259
Application No. 08/391,817
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we
agree with the Examiner that claims 1 through 20 and 23 are
anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Kubota, Nakazawa and
Yamada, each taken separately.
At the outset, we note that Appellants have indicated on
page 4 of the brief that all claims stand or fall together.
We further note that Appellants have argued the claims as one
group.
As per 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) revised as of July 1, 1996, which
was controlling at the time of Appellants filing the brief, we
have selected claim 1 as the representative claim.
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.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007