Appeal No. 2001-1269
Application No. 08/939,685
claims 3, 6 through 10, 12, 14, 15 and 20 through 22.
In order to anticipate a claim, a prior art reference
must disclose every limitation of the claimed invention,
either explicitly or inherently. Glaxo Inc. v. Novopharm
Ltd., 52 F.3d 1043, 1047, 34 USPQ2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir.),
cert. denied, 516 U.S. 3378 (1995). Appellants’ arguments
(reply brief, pages 2 and 3) to the contrary
notwithstanding, all of the limitations of claim 1 are
disclosed in Scholten. The acceleration chart disclosed by
Scholten (Figure 5) clearly shows a temporary easing of the
acceleration between the peak of the first acceleration
curve and the valley between the first and second
acceleration curves. Such an easement occurs during an
acceleration period in which the optical system (i.e., the
lens 20 and the mirror 22) are accelerating “to reach a
predetermined running velocity” as claimed. With respect to
claim 4, the noted second acceleration curve in Scholten
indicates that the optical system “resumes accelerating at
the same acceleration rate as before the driving velocity of
the driving unit is controlled.” Thus, the 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of claims 1 and 4 is sustained. The
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007