Appeal No. 95-4968 Application 08/074,518 After a careful review of the evidence before us, we do not agree with the Examiner that claims 1 and 4 are 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's claim 1 recites: field of induction calculating means for calculating a field of induction on the retina of the character image input from said input means; and character recognizing means for recognizing a character base on difference between fields of induction on the retina of different character images calculated by said field of induction calculating means, by quantitatively evaluating a magnitude of a strain generated when the field of induction of one character image deforms to be matched with the field of induction of another character image. Appellants argue on pages 6 and 7 of the brief, filed December 21, 1994, that Foote fails to teach the Appellant's claimed limitations as required under 35 U.S.C. § 102. In particular, Appellants argue that Foote does not disclose a field 3Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007