Appeal No. 1999-0931
Application 08/772,861
Under the authority of 37 CFR 1.196(b), this panel of the
board introduces the following new grounds of rejection.3
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being
anticipated by Schell, Jr.
Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) is established only
when a single prior art reference discloses, either expressly
or under principles of inherency, each and every element of a
claimed invention. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477,
44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re
Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir.
1990); and RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730
F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). However, the law of anticipation
does not require that the reference teach specifically what an
3While we have been made aware by appellant (supplemental appeal brief, page 7)
of a prolonged prosecution history (page 7), we nevertheless, but regrettably, have
found it necessary to enter new grounds of rejection.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007