Appeal No. 2002-2106
Application 09/313,359
Appellants and the Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 9 and 10 under
35 U.S.C. § 102, and we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 3, 4 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 102
“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 Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444,
221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.), cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228
(1984), citing Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772,
218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026
(1984).
Appellants argue that the term “presettable target
value” properly construed in accordance with the Appellants’
specification, does not read on Nakano’s disclosed “notified
transmission power value.” See pages 5-10 of the brief and the
reply brief.
As pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first
determine the scope of the claim. "[T]he name of the game is the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007