Appeal No. 95-3684
Application 08/110,273
anticipated by Krauss. Claims 2 through 14 and 18 through 23
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Krauss. Claims 15 through 17 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Krauss in view of
Cedrone.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the
Examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for
the details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we do
not agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is anticipated by
Krauss.
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).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007