Appeal No. 2005-1229 Page 4
Application No. 09/887,334
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The anticipation rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 13, 16 and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b).
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).
The appellants argue that the "means for heating" limitation of claim 13 is not
disclosed by Suda. In particular, the appellants point out that although Suda discloses a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007