Appeal No. 95-3208
Application 08/067,307
the light over a given collection angle." Appellants argue that
Fulwyler, on the other hand, teaches only detecting the light
that has been deflected by the particle and not detecting the
light which was not scattered by the particle as recited in
Appellants' claims.
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 is established only when a
single prior art reference discloses, expressly or under
principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed
invention." RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730
F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.), cert. dismissed,
468 U.S. 1228 (1984), citing Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713
F.2d 760, 772 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Turning to Figure 5, Fulwyler teaches that the light that is
scattered is collected by a photodiode while the direct beam from
the laser is passed to a beam dump. Thus, Fulwyler does not
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007