Appeal No. 2000-2111
Application No. 08/860,537
and concludes that Nagasawa teaches both control means and
input/output control means for receiving the designated speed and
controlling the recording/reproducing means, respectively (id.).
As a general principal, a rejection for anticipation under
section 102 requires that each and every limitation of the
claimed invention be disclosed in a single prior art reference.
In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed.
Cir. 1994), citing In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d
1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The inquiry as to whether a
reference anticipates a claim must focus on what subject matter
is encompassed by the claim and what subject matter is described
by the reference. As set forth by the court in Kalman v.
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed.
Cir. 1983), it is only necessary for the claims to “‘read on’
something disclosed in the reference, i.e., all limitations of
the claim are found in the reference, or ‘fully met’ by it.”
After reviewing Nagasawa, we find that the Examiner presents
sufficient support to establish a prima facie case of
anticipation. In Figure 2, Nagasawa discloses a video editing
system which records reproduced source video data in a storage
device and produces edited video data from the data in the
storage device to an external device. In particular, Nagasawa
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007