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