Appeal No. 2003-0030
Application No. 09/660,871
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the anticipation issue raised
in this appeal, this panel of the Board has carefully considered
appellants' specification and claims, the applied patent, and the
respective viewpoints of appellants and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we make the determination which
follows.
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 32 through 35, 37,
and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Bauer.
We well understand the examiner's point of view that Bauer is
anticipatory of the claimed method (answer, pages 4 and 5), but
for reasons given below we are not in accord therewith.
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 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990);
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007