Appeal No. 1997-3279 Page 5
Application No. 08/240,702
and evidence of the appellants and examiner. After
considering the totality of the record, we are persuaded that
the examiner erred in rejecting claims 21 and 28.
Accordingly, we reverse. Our opinion addresses the novelty
and nonobviousness of the claims.
Novelty of the Claims
We begin by noting the following principles from Rowe v.
Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir.
1997).
A prior art reference anticipates a claim only if
the reference discloses, either expressly or
inherently, every limitation of the claim. See
Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d
628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
"[A]bsence from the reference of any claimed element
negates anticipation." Kloster Speedsteel AB v.
Crucible, Inc., 793 F.2d 1565, 1571, 230 USPQ 81, 84
(Fed. Cir. 1986)).
With these principles in mind, we consider the examiner's
rejection and the appellants' argument.
Although Fujitani "doesn't show magnetic poles at regular
intervals in the circumferential direction," (Examiner's
Answer at 4), the examiner asserts, "[i]t would have been
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007