Appeal No. 2004-0429
Application 09/335,289
Throughout our opinion, we make references to the
Appellants’ briefs, and to the Examiner’s Answer for the
respective details thereof.1
OPINION
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner’s rejections and the arguments of the
Appellants and the Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-18, and
20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
I. Whether the Rejection of Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-18, and 20
Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the disclosure of Fukuzawa does not fully meet the invention
as recited in claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-18, and 20. 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.
1 Appellants filed a supplemental appeal brief on March 31, 2003 that
fully replaced a defective appeal brief filed January 2, 2003.
Appellants filed a reply brief on August 18, 2003. The Examiner
mailed an Examiner’s Answer on June 16, 2003.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007