Appeal No. 2002-1839 Page 5
Application No. 09/199,751
electro-acoustic driver that is mounted partway along a horn, downstream from the
throat of the horn.
"Having construed the claim limitations at issue, we now compare the claims to
the prior art to determine if the prior art anticipates those claims." In re Cruciferous
Sprout Litigation, 64 USPQ2d 1202, 1206 (Fed. Cir. 2002). "A claim is anticipated only
if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or
inherently described, in a single prior art reference." Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil
Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (citing Structural
Rubber Prods. Co. v. Park Rubber Co., 749 F.2d 707, 715, 223 USPQ 1264, 1270
(Fed. Cir. 1984); Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548, 220 USPQ
193, 198 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d760, 771, 218
USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). "[T]here is no anticipation 'unless all of the same
elements are found in exactly the same situation and united in the same way . . . in a
single prior art reference.'" Perkin-Elmer Corp. v. Computervision Corp., 732 F.2d 888,
894, 221 USPQ 669, 673 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (citing Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713
F.2d 760, 771, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Here, Murakami’s "FIG. 6 is a side-elevational view, in longitudinal cross-section,
of still another embodiment of the present invention, wherein the loud-speaker of a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007