Appeal No. 2001-2421
Application No. 09/092,577
inventor has merely assigned the invention to the assignee. An
assignment or sale of the rights in an invention, and potential
patent rights is not a sale of “the invention” within the meaning
of Section 102(b). Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793
F.2d 1261, 1267, 229 USPQ 805, 809 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore,
we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claim 1-17.
Turning now to the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims 9 and
10 over Scrivo, Appellants argue that the prior art reference
does not disclose the claimed second coupling fixture comprising
a spring biased terminal end segment (brief, page 3). Appellants
assert that spring 50 of Scrivo, as characterized by the Examiner
to provide the biasing function (answer, page 6), is a
conventional strain relief spring for preventing the enclosed
fiber bundle from bending at too sharp an angle and does not
include the recited “second end” (reply brief, page 2).
A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that
the four corners of a single prior art document describe every
element of the claimed invention, either expressly or inherently,
such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could practice
the invention without undue experimentation. See Atlas Powder
Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007