Appeal No. 96-3242
Application 08/458,012
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Miura.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants 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 claims 20 through 25 are
anticipated by the applied references.
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).
Appellants argue on pages 3 and 4 of the brief that Miura
fails to teach the Appellants’ claimed limitations as required
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007