Appeal No. 1999-0298
Application No. 08/486,780
Taking a reasonably broad interpretation, claims 32 and 33
require a control means for controlling the power consumption of
the pickup/converting means based upon the capacity of the
recording medium/memory.
Using the above interpretation, we review the rejection of
claims 32 through 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. It is axiomatic that
anticipation of a claim under § 102 can be found only if the
prior art reference discloses every element of the claim. See In
re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick
Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Upon our review, we find that the Examiner has not shown
that Adcock teaches a second control means for controlling power
consumption of the pickup/converter means based on the capacity
of the recording medium or memory. In the Examiner’s answer, the
Examiner relies on column 7, lines 4 through 34, of Adcock for a
finding of anticipation of the claimed second control means for
controlling power consumption of the converting means. See the
Examiner’s answer, page 7, last two paragraphs through page 8.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007