Appeal No. 2003-1706
Application No. 09/672,826
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art reference, and the respective positions articulated by
appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will reverse the anticipation rejection of claims 1 through 62
and 68 through 78.
"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." In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ
136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See also Lindemann Maschinenfabrik
GMBH v. American Hoist and Derrick, 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ
481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Thus, if any limitation is lacking
from the reference, the claim cannot be anticipated.
Independent claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, a pre-
fetching judging means for judging before the terminal orders
output of an image whether the stored image is necessary. The
examiner relies (Final Rejection, page 2) on portions of columns
6, 33, 34, 36, and 37 for such pre-fetching judging means (with
no explanation as to how the various portions of Taguchi satisfy
the claim language). Appellant argues (Brief, page 8) that no
pre-fetching exists in Taguchi and explains (Brief, pages 8-10)
how each cited portion supports that the relevant medical image
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007