Appeal No. 2003-0119
Application No. 09/569,477
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 cannot sustain the anticipation rejection of appellants’
claims.
Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) 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); and RCA
Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444,
221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). However, the law of
anticipation does not require that the reference teach
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007