Appeal No. 2002-0723
Application 08/965,637
claim.” In re McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379, 1383, 63 USPQ2d 1462,
1465 (Fed. Cir. 2002). See also In re Watts, 354 F.3d 1362, 69
USPQ2d 1453, 1457 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
I. Whether the Rejection of Claims 1-3, 5-10, 15-17, and
19-24 Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the disclosure of Yamaguchi et al does not fully meet the
invention as recited in claims 1-3, 5-10, 15-17, and 19-24.
Accordingly, we reverse.
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).
With respect to independent claim 1, the Examiner has
indicated how he finds anticipation of the claims on appeal
[answer, page 4, lines 1-12 and page 5, lines 1-3]. The Examiner
deems “Ep” to meet the “quantization error signal samples”
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007