Appeal No. 96-2693
Application No. 08/018,972
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we
affirm the 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections.
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 Systems, 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 7 of the brief that PKZIP
detects only one [hardware] attribute while Appellants' claims
1 and 7 claim "reading at least one hardware attribute". As
pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first determine
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007