Appeal No. 1998-0805
Application No. 08/599,508
(5) Claims 13-16 on the basis of Wilke and Burns.4
(6) Claims 7-12 on the basis of Wilke and Hodson.
(7) Claim 25 on the basis of Wilke, Hodson and Calvert.
OPINION
Rather than reiterate the opposing viewpoints of the
examiner and the appellants here, we refer to the Answer
(Paper No. 15) and the Briefs (Papers Nos. 11 and 17) for the
full explanations thereof.
The Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, either expressly or under the principles
of inherency, each and every element of the claimed invention.
See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480-1481, 31 USPQ2d 1671,
1675 (Fed. Cir. 1994) and In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15
USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990). It does not require that
the reference teach what the applicant is claiming, but only
that the claim on appeal "read on" something disclosed in the
4This was recited in the Answer as being on the basis of
Wilke, alone. However, that apparently was an error, for see
Paper No. 7 (the final rejection), page 8.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007