Appeal No. 1997-2054
Application No. 08/332,555
generating an editing related display by said second
processor in part in response to said videographics program
related data received from said first processor.
The reference relied on by the Examiner is as follows:
San et al. (San) 5,388,841 Feb. 14,
1995
(filed Jan. 30,
1992)
Claims 1 through 27, 29 and 30 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by San.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the
Examiner, we make reference to the brief and answer for
details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we
do not agree with the Examiner that claims 1 through 27, 29
and 30 are anticipated by the applied reference.
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
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007