1Application for patent filed June 07, 1995. According to
the appellant, this application is a continuation o
08/405,396, filed March 15, 1995, w07/991,050, filed December
15, 1992.
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we
agree with the Appellant that claims 4 through 7, 17 and 18
are patentable over Heuscher (B) under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e); and
that
claim 9 is patentable over Heuscher (B) under 35 U.S.C. §
102(e) and Heuscher (B) in view of Heuscher (A) under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
At the outset, we note that Appellant has indicated on
page 11 of the brief that all rejected claims stand together.
We will therefore consider claim 17 as the representative
claim.
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
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007