Appeal No. 2004-1621 Page 4 Application No. 08/653,425 Cir. 1987). In answering the question, "[t]he Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) must consider all claim limitations when determining patentability of an invention over the prior art." In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1582, 32 USPQ2d 1021, 1034 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 403-04 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Here, claim 1 recites in pertinent part the following negative limitations: "there is no third, or any other contact between the ball and any other part of the mouse, especially no third contact between the ball and another wheel. . . ." Considering these limitations, claim 1 excludes contact between the ball of a mouse and any wheel besides X- and Y-coordinate shafts. 2. ANTICIPATION DETERMINATION "Having construed the claim limitations at issue, we now compare the claims to the prior art to determine if the prior art anticipates those claims." In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1349, 64 USPQ2d 1202, 1206 (Fed. Cir. 2002). "A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference." Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (citing Structural Rubber Prods. Co. v. Park Rubber Co., 749 F.2d 707, 715, 223 USPQ 1264, 1270 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548, 220Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007