Appeal No. 2002-2027 Page 5
Application No. 09/209,304
Here, we agree with the examiner that the function of "limiting the amount of roll
motion of the slider is not claimed. Moreover, this limitation is not described in the
instant specification." (Examiner's Answer at 6.) Instead, claim 8 specifies in pertinent
part the following limitation: "means for determining the amount of current to apply to
the voice coil based on a comparison between an actual velocity and a demand
velocity." Construing the limitation to cover the corresponding structure shown in
Figure 2 of the specification and equivalents thereof, the claim requires circuitry for
comparing a desired velocity to a measured velocity.
"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 Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1349, 64 USPQ2d 1202, 1206 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
"[A]nticipation is a question of fact." In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1371, 54 USPQ2d
1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (citing Bischoff v. Wethered, 76 U.S. (9 Wall.) 812, 814-15
(1869); In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
"A claim is anticipated . . . 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,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007