Appeal No. 1999-1604
Application 08/741,419
anticipated by Swanson
We will not sustain the rejection of claim 25 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Swanson.
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under 35
U.S.C. § 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).
"Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under principles of
inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention."
RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d
1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert.
dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984), citing Kalman v. Kimberly-
Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir.
1983).
Appellants submit that Swanson does not teach either a38
drawing widget that includes a set values method, or a set
38Brief, page 13.
17
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007