Appeal No. 1998-1111
Application 08/539,513
under 35 U.S.C. § 102, nor the rejection of claim 4 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 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.), 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).
On page 12 of the Brief, Appellants argue that Ferguson
does not teach transferring control between a data processing
function and an input function; nor an input function for
retrieving all input data into memory prior to performing the
data processing function; nor an output function for
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007