Appeal No. 96-2871
Application 08/352,964
the “degree” of the terms claimed. The specification is
silent as to how much off axis mounting is tolerable; how one
would measure a reduction in exteriorly generated noises and
what minimum levels are acceptable (the thrust of the
invention itself); what low frequencies should be measured
relative to pressurization and how much degradation is
acceptable; and how, and to what degree, one would measure for
“excluded” transmission paths. We find the Appellants’
explanations of “examining” and “ascertaining” amount to so
much experimentation that it would be tantamount to
reinventing that which Appellants have claimed to invent. For
the above reasons, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102
To the degree that we can understand the metes and bounds
of Appellants’ claims, we have come to the following
conclusions.
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,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007