Appeal No. 1998-0817
Application 08/610,976
details thereof.
OPINION
After careful review of the evidence before us, we do not
agree with the Examiner that claims 14-20 and 22-24 are
anticipated by the applied references.
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).
On pages 6 and 7 of the brief, Appellant points out that
claim 14 recites:
A phase locked loop responsive to format data
for generating a first clock signal;
means for monitoring actual rotational speed of the
rotating disk; and
means responsive to the monitoring loop means for
controlling the phase locked loop to adjust the
first clock signal to have a frequency and phase
that is compensated for changes in the actual
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007