Appeal No. 96-0209
Application 07/922,501
claimed invention be described in a single reference." In re
Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 707 n.3, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 n.3 (Fed. Cir.
1990). "It is axiomatic that an anticipation of a claim under
§ 102 can be found only if the prior art reference discloses
every element of the claim and that anticipation is a fact
question subject to review under the clearly erroneous standard."
In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir.
1986). In that regard, note that what a reference discloses is a
question of fact. Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d
1561, 1579 n.42, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1606 n.42 (Fed. Cir.), cert.
denied, 481 U.S. 1052 (1987).
According to the examiner (answer at 3), (1) elements 10,
20-25 and 30-32 in the European '073 reference constitute the
music information reproducing means of each rejected claim;
(2) elements 10 and 30-31 in the European '073 reference
constitute the control information reproduction means in each
rejected claim; and (3) element 33 in the European '073 reference
constitutes the control means in each rejected claim.
The finding with respect to the music information
reproduction means lacks merit since elements 20-25 and 30-32 are
on different processing paths and produce different outputs.
What the examiner regards as the reproduced music signal from the
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007