Appeal No. 96-0362
Application No. 07/909,350
The rejected claims stand or fall together with Claim 1.
Appeal Brief at 5. First we will consider anticipation of
Claim 1 by Tamamura, and then by Dwyer.
Anticipation by Tamamura
Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102 requires that each element
of the claim in issue be found either expressly or inherently in
a single prior art reference. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326,
231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark
Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
The examiner states that all of the elements of Claim 1 are
met by Tamamura. According to the examiner, the recited edge
follower means is met by Tamamura’s pressure plate 1. Examiner’s
Answer at 4.
Appellants contend that Tamamura does not anticipate Claim 1
because pressure plate 1 is not an edge follower means for
tracking a longitudinal edge of the photosensitive material.
Appeal Brief at 6.
We agree with Appellants.
Claims undergoing examination are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.
In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
(in banc).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007