Ex parte AL EX JUNINO, et al. - Page 3
Legal Research Home >
Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences > 1997 > Ex parte AL EX JUNINO, et al. - Page 3
Appeal No. 95-1274
Application No. 07/914,150
When n is 1, the C -C bond is a single bond.
2 3
The reference relied on by the examiner is
Paul 2,320,746 June 1, 1943
Claims 1 through 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)3
as being anticipated by Paul. We reverse.
THE OPINION
A requirement of anticipation of a claim is that a single
prior art reference discloses, expressly or by inherency, each
and every limitation of that claim. Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v.
Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir.
1987), cert denied 484 U.S. 827 (1987).
In rejecting the appealed claims, the examiner argues that
Paul teaches a composition comprising 0.1 - 5% of a benzofuran
derivative. The examiner states that since applicants disclose
0.01-10% as an effective amount of the benzofuran derivative,
Paul anticipates claim 1.
We disagree with the examiner’s ultimate finding of
anticipation. It is well settled that every claim limitation
3We note that the examiner’s statement regarding the
withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103. See the
answer at page 3.
3
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Last modified: November 3, 2007
|
