Appeal No. 2002-1185
Application No. 09/112,242
which cannot be characterized as the same thing by the Examiner
(brief, pages 6 & 7). Appellants further argue that moveable
guides 415 and 419 in Figure 4 of Leonhardt are used to wrap the
tape about head 416, but do not provide any tape translation
around the circumference of the takeup reel (brief, page 7).
In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner relies on
Figures 5 and 6 of Leonhardt and argues that the takeup reel has
the tape around its circumference via tape portions 425 and 426
and wraps about the read/write head (answer, page 5). The
Examiner further asserts that the moveable guides provide for
these tape portions to be guided and translated about the takeup
reel (id.).
A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that
the four corners of a single prior art document describe every
element of the claimed invention, either expressly or inherently,
such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could practice
the invention without undue experimentation. See Atlas Powder
Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947
(Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d
1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The inquiry as to whether a
reference anticipates a claim must focus on what subject matter
is encompassed by the claim and what subject matter is described
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007