Ex parte TAGUCHI et al. - Page 3




          Appeal No. 1998-0907                                                        
          Application 08/121,365                                                      


               The reference relied on by the Examiner is as follows:                 
          Ragland, Jr.   4,455,505         Jun. 19, 1984                              
               Claims 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  102(b) as              
          being anticipated by Ragland.                                               
               Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the                  
          Examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for                 
          the respective details thereof.                                             




                                       OPINION                                        
               After a careful review of the evidence before us, we                   
          agree with the Examiner that claims 7 and 8 are anticipated                 
          under 35 U.S.C.  102 by Ragland.                                           
               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                       

                                          3                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007