Appeal No. 1998-2508
Application 08/626,299
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we
do not agree with the Examiner that claims 1 through 6 are
anticipated by Kimura.
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).
On page 5 of the brief, Appellants point out that
Appellants' claim 1 specifically recites converting light from
a laser light source which has been reflected from the storage
medium into an electrical signal and integrating that
electrical signal over a period of time which is equal to at
least one period of the recited oscillatory motion.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007