Appeal No. 2005-1262
Application No. 09/864,809
regarding the merits of these rejections.1
Discussion
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1 through 7, 17
through 19, 26, 28, 30 and 31 as being anticipated by Larsen
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under 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).
Larsen discloses “a pressure regulating valve interposed in
[a] pipe supplying actuating fluid to [a] pump which will
automatically cut off the supply of motive fluid upon a sudden
reduction of pressure in the tank or reservoir . . . and whereby
the supply of the motive fluid will be automatically varied and
1
1 The final rejection also included a 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, rejection of claims 1 through 12, 14, 16 through 22
and 26 through 31, and a 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
rejection of claims 27 and 29. Upon reconsideration, the
examiner has withdrawn these rejections (see page 3 in the
answer).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007