Appeal No. 96-4029
Application 08/386,604
Claims 1, 2, and 7 through 9 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Anthias. Claims 3
through 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Anthias in view of Holden.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and
the Examiner, reference is made to the brief and answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2,
and 7 through 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, nor will we sustain the
rejection of claims 3 through 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
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).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007