Appeal No. 2003-1893
Application No. 09/770,018
unpatentable over the disclosure of Marvil.2
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, Specification and
applied prior art, including all of the arguments advanced by
both the examiner and the appellants in support of their
respective positions. This review leads us to conclude that the
examiner’s Sections 102 and 103 rejections are well founded.
Accordingly, we affirm these rejections for essentially those
reasons set forth in the Answer. We add the following primarily
for emphasis and completeness.
To establish anticipation under Section 102, a single prior
art reference must disclose, either expressly or under the
principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed
invention. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655,
1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990); RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys.,
Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
This does not mean that additional extrinsic evidence cannot be
relied upon to explain the meaning of that reference. See Baxter
Travenol Labs, 952 F.2d at 390, 21 USPQ2d at 1284; Scripps Clinic
2The examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 1
through 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Chen, U.S.
Patent No. 6113,830 issued on September 5, 2000.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007