Appeal No. 2000-1252
Application No. 08/522,839
4, lines 21 through 32; column 7, lines
4 through 24), as opposed to “at the end of the first complete
disc revolution” (claim 5). In view of this update correction
difference, each and every limitation of claim 5 is not
disclosed in Andrews. In keeping with Glaxo Inc. v. Novopharm
Ltd.,
52 F.3d 1043, 1047, 34 USPQ2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir.), cert.
denied, 516 U.S. 3378 (1995), the 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection
of claim 5 and the claims that depend therefrom is reversed.
The 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims 1 through 4
and 11 through 13 is likewise reversed because the same
limitation is found in each of these claims.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007