Appeal No. 03-0877 Page 4
Application No. 09/601,884
The Rejection Under Section 102
It is the examiner’s view that the subject matter of claim 9 is anticipated by
Parikh. Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference discloses,
expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and every element of the claimed
invention. See, for example, RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d
1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). A reference anticipates a claim if it
discloses the claimed invention such that a skilled artisan could take its teachings in
combination with his own knowledge of the particular art and be in possession of the
invention. In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152, 36 USPQ2d 1697, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 1995),
cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 1362 (1996), quoting from In re LeGrice, 301 F.2d 929, 936,
133 USPQ 365, 372 (CCPA 1962). Applying this guidance of our reviewing court to the
situation at hand leads us to conclude that the rejection of claim 9 cannot be sustained.
Our reasoning follows.
Parikh is directed to an aircraft boundary layer control system, and the examiner
directs attention to Figure 4 in the rejection. Among the requirements of the appellants’
claim 9 is that there be a skin and “a base member supporting said skin.” Parikh
discloses a skin 80, which extends from a leading edge 78 to front spar 82, and is
provided with a plurality of perforations 66. The examiner is of the view that this skin is
supported by an unnumbered element shown beneath and spaced from the inner
surface of the skin which, together with the skin, defines a passage through which air is
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007