Appeal No. 1999-2127
Application No. 08/754,371
OPINION
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).
Independent claim 1 is directed to a heat exchanger which
comprises, inter alia, “a first pass including a plurality of
heat transfer tubes” and “a second pass defined by a single,
large diameter pipe . . . .” The examiner reads the first
pass on the plurality of tubes 10 disclosed in Vezie, and the
second pass on any one of the eight larger tubes 12 (Answer,
page 2). We agree with the appellant this is not a proper
interpretation of the claim language.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood
from the appellant’s specification as well as common knowledge
in the art that a “pass” is a single movement from one end to
the other through a heat exchanger, and that while the first
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007