Appeal No. 1996-3706
Application 07/854,921
rejection of claims 1-14, 17, 23-25 and 31-35 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Conrad.
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under
35 U.S.C. § 102 can be found only if the prior art reference
discloses every element of the claim. See In re King, 801
F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and
Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick
Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
"Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under principles of
inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention."
RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440,
1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. dismissed, 468
U.S. 1228 (1984), citing Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713
F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
First, Appellant submits that Conrad does not6
disclose subsidiary displays, independent and dependent
variables or relationships between the variables, or
mutuality. As regards subsidiary displays, Appellant asserts
6Brief, pages 7-8
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007