Appeal No. 95-2784
Application 08/193,634
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and
the Examiner, reference is made to the briefs and answer for 2
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1
through 3, 18 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). "Anticipation
2Appellant filed an appeal brief on November 21, 1994.
We will refer to this appeal brief as simply the brief.
Appellant filed a reply appeal brief on March 6, 1995. We
will refer to this reply appeal brief as the reply brief. The
Examiner stated in the Examiner’s letter mailed March 17, 1995
that the reply brief has been entered and considered but no
further response by the Examiner is deemed necessary.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007