Appeal No. 96-2871
Application 08/352,964
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 that Erickson compresses air while their
speaker “is substantially prevented from being pressurized”
(brief at page 10). We agree with the Examiner (answer,
bottom of page 10) that this is not a distinction over
Erickson because “substantially “ preventing pressure
inherently allows for “some” pressure in Appellants’
invention.
At page 11 of the brief Appellants argue that Erickson’s
enclosure is not a “sound absorbing material”, re claim 1.
Since, as the Examiner contends, all materials absorb some
sound, and further since Appellants disclose no degree of
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007