Appeal No. 1998-2869
Application 08/453,496
details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we do
not agree with the Examiner that claims 1, 12 and 17 through
20 are anticipated by Shiraishi ‘636, nor do we agree with the
Examiner
that claim 16 is unpatentable in view of Shiraishi ‘636 and
Shiraishi ‘657.
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).
Appellants argue that the yaw motion control device of
Shiraishi ‘636 is, generally, fundamentally distinct from the
driving state-monitoring apparatus as defined in each of
independent claims 1 and 12 because Shiraishi’s device does
but no further response by the Examiner is deemed necessary.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007