Appeal No. 1999-1126 Page 4
Application No. 08/722,486
In deciding this appeal, we considered the subject matter
on appeal and the rejection advanced by the examiner.
Furthermore, we duly considered the arguments and evidence of
the appellants and examiner. After considering the record, we
are persuaded that the examiner erred in rejecting claims 4,
5, 10, and 12. Accordingly, we reverse.
We begin by noting the following principles from Rowe v.
Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir.
1997).
A prior art reference anticipates a claim only if
the reference discloses, either expressly or
inherently, every limitation of the claim. See
Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d
628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
"[A]bsence from the reference of any claimed element
negates anticipation." Kloster Speedsteel AB v.
Crucible, Inc., 793 F.2d 1565, 1571, 230 USPQ 81, 84
(Fed. Cir. 1986).
With these principles in mind, we address the appellants'
arguments and the examiner's responses.
The appellants' argue, "the Taguchi reference does not
set forth or suggest a device wherein a differential current
sensing amplifier is employed ...." (Appeal Br. at 4.) They
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007