Ex parte LAVALLEE - Page 4

          Appeal No. 1998-1337                                                        
          Application 08/351,102                                                      

                    After careful review of the evidence before us, we                
          do not agree with the Examiner that claims 1 through 5 and 8                
          through 12 are anticipated by Kimura.                                       
                    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).                             
                    Appellant argues that Kimura does not disclose every              
          element or claim recitation as required under  102.                        

          argues on page 6 of the brief that Kimura does not disclose                 
          concurrent encoding of image data using more than one encoder.              
          Appellant argues that appellant's claims require two encoders               
          to encode image data and a controller to select data from one               
          of the two encoders after the image data has been encoded by                
          the two encoders.  In particular, appellant points to claim 1               
          as well as claim 9 language which requires second encoding                  


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007