Appeal No. 2002-0339
Application 09/226,252
disclosure which descriptively supports mixing more than one
lubricant with the iron powder.
Indefiniteness
We sustain the rejection of claims 8 through 10 and 21
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
indefinite. Simply stated, as recognized by the examiner
(answer, page 6), appellant shares the examiner’s point of view
(brief, pages 8 and 9) as to the instances of existing
indefiniteness.
Anticipation
We sustain the rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Knight.
Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is established only
when a single prior art reference discloses, either expressly or
under principles of inherency, each and every element of a
claimed invention. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44
USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475,
1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Spada, 911
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007