Appeal No. 1999-2088 Page 8
Application No. 08/782,243
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 1, 3 to 8, 10 to 15 and 17 to 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REMAND
We remand the application to the examiner for his/her
consideration of whether any of the claims under appeal are
anticipated by either the admitted prior art (specification,3
pp. 1-2) or U.S. Patent No. 2,021,620 to Weir. Additionally,
we remand the application to the examiner for his/her
consideration of whether any of the claims under appeal would
have been obvious from the teachings of the admitted prior art
(specification, pp. 1-2), Landenberger and U.S. Patent No.
2,021,620 to Weir.
CONCLUSION
3To 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).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007