Appeal No. 1996-2578
Application 08/216,807
reviewed the Appellant’s arguments set forth in the brief.
It is our view that claims 1 to 3, 7, 9, 12 and 14 are
anticipated by either Shen or Winebarger, while claims 4 to 6
are not. Accordingly, we affirm in part.
We take up these rejections in the order they appear in
the answer. In our analysis below, we are guided by the
precedence of our reviewing court that the limitations from
the disclosure
are not to be imported into the claims. In re Lundberg, 244
F.2d 543, 548, 113 USPQ 530, 534 (CCPA 1957); In re Queener,
796 F.2d 461, 464, 230 USPQ 438, 440 (Fed. Cir. 1986). We are
also mindful of the requirements of anticipation under 35
U.S.C. § 102. We must point out, however, that
anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is established only when a
single prior art reference discloses, either expressly or
under the principles of inherency, each and every element of a
claimed invention. See RCA Corp. V. Applied Digital Data
Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007