Appeal No. 1998-2713
Application No. 08/583,295
added). Inasmuch as a value is not “values,” all of the
limitations of claim 1 are not disclosed by Abbott. To
anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must disclose every
limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or
inherently. Glaxo Inc. v. Novopharm Ltd., 52 F.3d 1043, 1047,
34 USPQ2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Thus, the 35 U.S.C. §
102(e) rejection of claim 1 through 3 is reversed.
Turning to claims 4 through 6, appellants argue (brief,
pages 10 through 12) that Abbott does not disclose the claimed
steps for calibrating analog filter parameters, whereas the
examiner argues (answer, pages 4 and 5) that Abbott expressly
teaches the claimed invention at “col. 18, ll. 34-38, 66-68,
col. 19, ll. 1-20, col. 20, ll. 15-32, col. 21, ll. 2-34, col.
24, ll. 14-31 . . . .” Although the referenced portions of
Abbott are concerned with calibration of a filter, Abbott does
not calibrate a filter in the manner required by claims 4
through 6 on appeal. For this reason, the 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
rejection of claims 4 through 6 is reversed.
With respect to claims 10 and 11, the examiner is of the
opinion (answer, page 5) that Figure 4 of Abbott illustrates a
calibration system for gain control. Appellants argue (brief,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007