Appeal No. 1998-1231 Page 6
Application No. 08/729,835
53 and the cleaning station 56, we are in agreement with
appellants that the belt as disclosed moves in a single
direction. As to the language “predetermined optimum
velocity,” from our review of the claims, we are in agreement
with appellants that the language objected to by the examiner
is not present in the claims before us on appeal.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. §
112, first paragraph, is reversed.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 1-5 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Yoshida. Anticipation is a
question of fact. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ
136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986). A claim is anticipated only if
each and every element as set forth in the claim is found,
either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference. Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814
F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied,
484 U.S. 827 (1987).
The examiner’s position (answer, pages 4-5) is that “[i]t
is not seen where maintaining a precise velocity presents
structure over Yoshida et al.” and that “the limitations to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007