Ex parte BOICHOT et al. - Page 4




          Appeal No. 1999-1054                                       Page 4           
          Application No. 08/889,594                                                  

          signal of measured relative speed supplies a control signal to              
          the flow actuating means to thereby control the damping force               
          on the actuator which is in opposition to the said force signal             
          and speed signal.                                                           
                        The Rejection Under 35 U.S.C.  102(b)                        
               Independent claim 1 and dependent claim 3 stand rejected               
          as being anticipated by Renault.  Anticipation is established               
          only when a single prior art reference discloses, either                    
          expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and every              
          element of the claimed invention.  See, for example, In re                  
          Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480-1481, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1675 (Fed.                
          Cir. 1994) and In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655,              
          1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990).                                                      
               The appellants have admitted that all of the subject                   
          matter recited in the preamble to claim 1 is found in Renault               
          (Brief, page 7).  They also have conceded that “most of the                 
          structural content within appealed independent claim 1 has                  
          counterpart basis within the Renault patent” (Brief, page 8).               
          They argue, however, that the claimed controls are very                     
          different in that                                                           









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

Last modified: November 3, 2007