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.
Appellant
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
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007