Appeal No. 95-4023
Application 08/062,033
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
anticipated by Cloud.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the
Examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for2
the details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we do
not agree with the Examiner that claim 17 is anticipated by
the applied reference.
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 filed an appeal brief on January 19, 1995. We will refer to2
this appeal brief as simply the brief. Appellant filed a reply appeal brief
on June 8, 1995. We will refer to this reply appeal brief as the reply brief.
The Examiner stated in the Examiner’s letter mailed October 15, 1997 that the
reply brief has been entered and considered but no further response by the
Examiner is deemed necessary.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007