Appeal No. 2002-2026
Application No. 09/620,424
determined that the proposed amendment does not constitute new
matter and would provide notice to the public as to the scope of
Appellants' claim 11. We strongly urge the Examiner to enter the
amendment as there is recommended practice as per MPEP 2181 and
37 CFR § 1.75(d)(1).
We agree with Appellants as to the corresponding structure
identified above in the proposed amendment to the specification.
Therefore, the element "recovery means for recovering the data"
shall be construed to cover the corresponding above structure
identified above and equivalents thereof.
35 U.S.C. § 102 REJECTION
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 of Holsinger, we fail to find that Holsinger
teaches the above identified correspondence which is construed to
be covered by Appellants' claim 11. Furthermore, we note that
the Examiner has made no attempt to show that Holsinger teaches
77
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007