Appeal No. 1998-1472 Page 6
Application No. 08/427,721
Novelty of Claims 1-3, 34, 35, and 178
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.
The appellants argue, “the aforementioned figure [6] and
associated description in Takeda indicate that the object beam
and reference beam used to create holograms on the optical
disk are closer to being co-propagating, rather than counter-
propagating, as claimed ....” (Appeal Br. at 11.) The
examiner replies, “the reference beam 25' and the other
focused beam of Takeda are directed from different directions
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007