Appeal No. 2002-0137
Application 09/069,765
II. Whether the Rejection of Claims 1-14, 18 and 19 Under
35 U.S.C. § 102 is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the disclosure of Weaver does not fully meet the invention
as recited in claims 1-14, 18 and 19. Accordingly, we reverse.
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).
With respect to independent claim 1, which is representative
of claims 1-14, 18 and 19, Appellants argue at the top of page 6
of the brief, “there is no disclosure or suggestion in Weaver of
terminating transmissions based upon the evaluation of the
transmission and the determination that the mobile station is
stationary.” The Examiner responds at page 15 of the answer
that, “[e]valuating transmissions from each plurality of sources
and selectively terminating transmissions reads on Weaver’s
invention.” We agree. However, we fail to see how this fully
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007