Appeal No. 2003-0249
Application 08/863,848
Rejections at Issue
Claims 1, 2 and 5 through 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 as being anticipated by Nakamura. Claims 3 and 4 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Nakamura and Kata. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Nakamura and King.
OPINION
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner’s rejections and the arguments of Appellant
and Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2 and 5 through 7 under
35 U.S.C. § 102, and we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 3, 4 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We first will address the rejection of claims 1, 2, and 5
through 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Anticipation 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. America Hoist &
Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir.
1984).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007