Appeal No. 1999-0263
Application No. 08/517,902
Claims 1-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. ' 102(b) as
being anticipated by Yamaguchi.1
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective positions of appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We reverse.
A prior art reference anticipates the subject matter
of a claim when the reference discloses every feature of
the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently.
See Hazani v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 126 F.3d 1473, 1477,
44 USPQ2d 1358, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and RCA Corp. v.
Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444,
221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Yamaguchi is clearly directed to subject matter which
is similar to that claimed and solves a similar problem of
reducing the memory capacity used by a reciprocal
1 The answer, at page 4, indicates that the rejection is
“based upon a public use or sale of the invention Yamaguchi
. . . .” Based on the explanation of the rejection and the
arguments in both the briefs and answer, it is clear that
the rejection is bases on an anticipation of the claimed
subject matter by Yamaguchi and not, in any way, on a
“public use or sale.”
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007