Appeal No. 1997-2652
Application 08/385,509
one of the holes of the second printed circuit board. Thus,
claims 10 through 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
being anticipated by Damon.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or
the Examiner, we make reference to the briefs and answer for 2
details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we
do not agree with the Examiner that claims 10 through 13 are
anticipated by Damon.
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
2Appellants filed an appeal brief on October 21, 1996.
Appellants filed a reply brief on December 16, 1996. The
Examiner mailed a communication on January 22, 1997 stating
that the reply brief has been entered and considered but no
further response by the Examiner is deemed necessary.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007