Appeal No. 2004-0260 Page 5
Application No. 09/091,788
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the subject matter of claim 14 is not
anticipated1 by Brandenfels. It follows that we shall not sustain the anticipation
rejection of claim 14 or claims 2, 5, 6, 8 and 10-12 depending therefrom.
The additional teachings of Brown provide no cure for the deficiency of
Brandenfels noted above. We therefore also shall not sustain the rejection of claims 7,
9 and 13 as being unpatentable over Brandenfels in view of Brown.
CONCLUSION
1 Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference discloses, expressly or under
the principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital
Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In other words, there must be
no difference between the claimed invention and the reference disclosure, as viewed by a person of
ordinary skill in the field of the invention. Scripps Clinic & Research Found. v. Genentech Inc., 927 F.2d
1565, 1576, 18 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007