Appeal No. 2005-2572
Application No. 10/268,809
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 4, 5, 7 and 14-18 as being anticipated by
Lüdeke
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under principles of inherency,
each and every element of a claimed invention. RCA Corp. v.
Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444,
221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). It is not necessary that
the reference teach what the subject application teaches, but
only that the claim read on something disclosed in the reference,
i.e., that all of the limitations in the claim be found in or
fully met by the reference. Kalman v. Kimberly Clark Corp., 713
F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied,
465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
Lüdeke discloses a magnetic resonance (MR) apparatus for
examining an object 1. In general, the apparatus comprises a
main field magnet 2, three gradient systems 3, 4, 5, an RF
transmitter 6, a receiving device 7, a receiving coil system 14,
a reconstruction unit 8, a display unit 9, and a programmable
control unit 15. These components structurally and functionally
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007