Appeal No. 95-3592
Application 08/109,203
Each paragraph provides a summary sentence restating the claim
limitations followed by an identical sentence of argument.
The identical sentence of argument is as follows: The Shirato
reference fails to teach or suggest this further limitation in
combination with the requirements of claim 1 [for claims 2
through 4, 6 through 10, 17 through 19] or claim 21 [for
claims 22 through 23]. Appellants have not presented how the
Examiner erred or reasons why Shirato does not teach or
suggest the claimed invention. We will, thereby, consider the
Appellants' claims as standing or falling together.
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
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007