Appeal No. 1997-3104
Application 08/221,124
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the
Examiner, we make reference to the brief and answer for de-
tails thereof.
OPINION
After careful review of the evidence before us, we
do not agree with the Examiner that claims 1 through 6 are
anticipated by Moeller.
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 Sys.,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007