Appeal No. 1997-2036
Application No. 08/335,991
group and provides arguments as to the separate patentability
of each group in accordance with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7).
Therefore, we will treat the claims as falling into the two
groups proposed by appellant, with claims 1 and 4,
respectively, as representative.
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we
will reverse both the anticipation rejection of claim 4 and
also the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 3.
"It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under §102
can be found only if the prior art reference discloses every
element of the claim," In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231
USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See also, Lindemann
Maschinenfabrik v. American Hoist and Derrick, 730 F.2d 1452,
1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In the present
case, claim 4 requires, in pertinent part, a plurality of
buffer chambers with a plurality of connecting channels
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007