Appeal No.2000-1286
Application No. 08/832,672
element of the claim." In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231
USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See also Lindemann
Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist and Derrick, 730 F.2d
1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984). As Saijo
fails to meet each and every limitation of the claim, Saijo
cannot anticipate claim 1. Further, as claims 3, 6, and 7
depend from claim 1, and, therefore, include all of the
limitations of claim 1, Saijo fails to anticipate claims 3, 6,
and 7. Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner's
rejection of claims 1, 3, 6, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
over Saijo.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007