Appeal No. 2001-1027 Page 5
Application No. 08/442,210
therefore not met his burden of showing that the claimed invention was identically
disclosed in the prior art. See Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d
628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (“A claim is anticipated only if
each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or
inherently described, in a single prior art reference.”). The rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
Summary
We reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because the examiner
has not established that the claimed invention was disclosed in the prior art.
REVERSED
Sherman D. Winters )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
Donald E. Adams )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
Eric Grimes )
Administrative Patent Judge )
DA/dym
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007