Appeal No. 2002-0313
Application No. 09/302,106
connected to the computer. Based on our review of the
specification, we agree with the Examiner that Appellants’
“direct” connection to the host computer may be through other
parts such as a traversing arm, a housing bracket (elements 110
and 310 in Figs. 1 and 3, respectively) or Gustafson’s card cage,
which are all parts of the host computer.
As a general principle, a rejection for anticipation under
section 102 requires that each and every limitation of the
claimed invention be disclosed in a single prior art reference.
In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed.
Cir. 1994), citing In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d
1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990). 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 court 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.”
After reviewing Gustafson, we agree with the Examiner that
the claimed assembly reads on Gustafson’s disk drive assembly 20
which includes circuit board 24 (Fig. 3) and disk 22 whereas the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007