Appeal No. 2002-0745
Application 08/893,379
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the evidence of record does not support any of the
examiner=s rejections which are on appeal. Accordingly, we
reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1 and 13 under
35 U.S.C. ' 102(b) as being anticipated by the disclosure of
Murakama. Anticipation is established only when a single prior
art reference discloses, expressly or under the principles of
inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention as well
as disclosing structure which is capable of performing the
recited functional limitations. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital
Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388
(Fed. Cir.); cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L. Gore and
Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ
303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
With respect to claims 1 and 13, the examiner has
indicated how he reads the two steps of claim 1 and the two means
of claim 13 on the disclosure of Murakami [Office action mailed
on March 21, 2000]. Appellants argue that Murakami fails to
disclose the limitation of [means for] estimating at least one
coding parameter used in the previous stage coding process.
Specifically, appellants argue that Murakami uses actual coding
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007