Appeal No. 1995-3030 Page 5
Application No. 08/073,091
view of Maeda further in view of Clark. Rather than repeat
the arguments of the appellants or examiner in toto, we refer
the reader to the briefs and answer for the respective details
thereof.
OPINION
In deciding this appeal, we considered the subject matter
on appeal and the rejection advanced by the examiner.
Furthermore, we duly considered the arguments and evidence of
the appellants and examiner. After considering the record, we
are persuaded that the examiner erred in rejecting claims 44-
89. Accordingly, we reverse.
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).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007