Appeal No. 96-1893
Application 08/073,416
will sustain this rejection pro forma.
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). "Anticipation is established only when
a single prior art reference discloses, expressly or under
principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed
invention." RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc.,
730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert.
dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984), citing Kalman v. Kimberly-
Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir.
1983).
Appellants argue on page 8 of the brief that in their
invention, "an engagement through the positioning means
between the main chassis and the slide chassis is controlled
in dependence upon a contact between the pinch roller and the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007