1 Application for patent filed August 27, 1993.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we
will not sustain the rejection of claims 3, 7 through 10, 19,
21, 27 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), nor will we sustain
the rejection of claims 4, 5, 6, 14 through 17, 20, 24, 25,
28, 32 and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Although the Examiner has cited prior art teachings
of the basic concepts claimed by Appellant, the Examiner not
shown the particular implementation claimed.
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) Rejection
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),
51
Application for patent filed August 27, 1993.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007