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).
In the brief and the reply brief, Appellant argues that the
Examiner has failed to show that Georgiou teaches all of the
claimed elements of Appellant's claims. In particular, Appellant
argues that the Examiner has failed to show that Georgiou teaches
n input expansion conductors as recited in the claims. We note
that Appellant's claims 1 through 6, 8, 9, 18 through 20 and 24
recite "n input expansion conductors" and Appellant's claims 21
through 23 recite "n input expansion terminals."
The Examiner argues on page 7 of the answer that Georgiou
teaches five input expansion conductors and seven output
conductors. However, Appellant argues that the claims require
there should be one input expansion conductor for each output
conductor.
We note that the claims do require the same number, n, input
expansion conductors and output conductors. After a careful
review of Georgiou, we fail to find that the Examiner has shown
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007