Appeal No. 95-1409
Application 07/966,644
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we do not
agree with the Examiner that the claims are anticipated under 35
U.S.C. § 102 by Trebino.
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).
Appellants’ claim 1 recites "combining said gate pulse and
said probe pulse within an instantaneously responding nonlinear
medium to form a signal pulse functionally related to a temporal
slice of said probe pulse corresponding to the time delay between
said probe pulse and said gate pulse.” Appellants’ claim 14
recites “an instantaneously responding medium located for
receiving said combined pulses and outputting a signal pulse
functionally related to said combined pulses; and a wavelength-
selective device for receiving said signal pulse and spectrally
resolving said signal pulse into signal intensity vs.
wavelength.” Appellants argue on pages 3-6 of the brief that the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007