Appeal No. 97-1114 Page 5
Application No. 08/222,643
To support a rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b),
it must be shown that each element of the claim is found, either
expressly described or under principles of inherency, in a single
prior art reference. See Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713
F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied,
465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
Claim 6 recites a mass transit system comprising, inter
alia, (1) a plurality of routes, (2) a plurality of terminals
located at points of intersection of the plurality of routes,
(3) the plurality of routes extending from an urban area to a
suburban area, and (4) a vertical takeoff and landing craft to
travel between terminals along the plurality of routes.
As correctly pointed out by the appellant (brief, p. 9),
"Roth discloses an airplane which may be operated to rise
vertically in the air, travel horizontally and descend in the
same manner."
We agree with the appellant's argument (brief, pp. 7-11)
that Roth does not disclose several of the elements recited in
claim 6. Specifically, Roth does not disclose (1) a plurality of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007