Appeal No. 1999-1543
Application No. 08/456,762
for by claim 1.” However, we agree with the Examiner (answer at
page 6) that current at line 30 indeed is a signal representative
of acceleration (figure 2 of Ell) and that node 45 serves as a
combining network for the modified acceleration signal (the
signal at 30 modified having gone through integrator 31 and
network 33) and the measured position signal at line 39 (modified
having gone through element 42 in figure 3). Both these signals
end up at combining node 45.
A prior art reference anticipates the subject of a claim
when the reference discloses every feature of the claimed
invention, either explicitly or inherently, See Hazani v. Int'l
Trade Comm'n, 126 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1358, 1361 (Fed.
Cir. 1997) and RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730
F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
In this case, Ell shows every element of claim 1 as required
by the anticipatory rejection as discussed above. Therefore, we
sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 1 by Ell.
Neal
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007