Appeal No. 2005-0255 Page 3
Application No. 10/190,475
(mailed May 7, 2004) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections,
and to the brief (filed March 11, 2004) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The anticipation rejection
We sustain the rejection of claims 13, 14, 16 and 18 to 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Swengel.
Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) requires that each and every element as
set forth in the claim is found, either expressly described or under principles of
inherency, in a single prior art reference. See Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713
F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026
(1984). If the prior art reference does not expressly set forth a particular element of the
claim, that reference still may anticipate if that element is "inherent" in its disclosure. To
establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence must make clear that the missing descriptive
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007