Appeal No. 95-1860
Application 07/988,074
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the
Examiner, reference is made to the brief and answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejections of claims 2, 7, 9, 11 and
19 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103.
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).
Appellant argues in the brief that neither Jones nor Bradley
teaches "a plurality of sample liquid container mounting means
each of which is operable to mount either a closed sample liquid
container or an open sample liquid container" as recited in
Appellant's claim 2. On page 7 of the brief, Appellant argues
that Jones teaches a sample liquid container mounting means
operable to mount an open sample liquid container but not a
closed sample liquid container. On the same page of the brief,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007