Appeal No. 1998-0884 Page 5
Application No. 08/084,642
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 appellants’
argument and the examiner’s reply.
Regarding claims 2, 8, 32, 43, 56, and 58, the appellants
argue, “a selection based upon the amount of data that is
produced (as in the present invention) is markedly different
from a selection based upon the amount of error that is
produced (as described by Krause '782).” (Appeal Br. at 16.)
The examiner replies, “the claims must be interpreted as
broadly as their terms reasonably allow.... In the present
case, it is reasonable to interpret the term ‘data’ as
‘error’....” (Examiner’s Answer at 7.) He adds, “when data
is ... read to encompass error, Krause clearly meets this
limitation (col. 8, ln.49-57).” (Id. at 8.)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007