Appeal No. 97-3987 Page 7
Application No. 08/387,047
See Ex parte Porter, 25 USPQ2d 1144, 1145 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter.
1992).
In this case, we agree with the appellants' position (brief,
p. 11) that the recitation of "a hot liquid reservoir and a cold
liquid reservoir" in parent claim 1 renders the language "said
liquids" definite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. That
is, it is our view that the scope of the invention sought to be
patented by claim 4 can be determined from the language of the
claims with a reasonable degree of certainty. Accordingly, the
decision of the examiner to reject claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, is reversed.
The anticipation issues
We will not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1
through 3, 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
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,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007