Appeal No. 95-5020
Application 08/151,041
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Claims 36, 37, 42, 46, 47, 52 and 55 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by McFerrin. 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 argues on pages 12 through 29 of the brief that
McFerrin fails to teach the Appellant's claimed limitations as
required under 35 U.S.C. § 102. In particular, Appellant
argues on pages 24 through 28 that McFerrin does not teach a
means for
generating a trigger pulse for initiating a discharge. In
addition, Appellant further argues on page 29 that McFerrin
does not teach a means for initiating discharge activity in
the medium in response to the trigger pulse and substantially
simultaneously with the occurrence of the trigger pulse.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007