Appeal No. 96-1663
Application 08/046,240
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
Scharlau.
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 13 through 16 of the brief
and on pages 3 through 7 of the reply brief that Scharlau
fails to teach the Appellant's claimed limitations as required
under
35 U.S.C. § 102. In particular, Appellant argues that
Scharlau does not teach that "the feed lines from each dipole
antenna to the common point and at least one dipole arm in
each dipole antenna and a matching leg are configured
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007