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