Appeal No. 1998-1322 Page 4
Application No. 08/454,068
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we considered
the subject matter on appeal and the rejection advanced by
the examiner. Furthermore, we duly considered the arguments
and evidence of the appellants and examiner. After
considering the totality of the record, we are persuaded that
the examiner erred in rejecting claims 5, 11, 14, and 18.
Accordingly, we reverse.
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 appellants’
argument and the examiner’s reply.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007