Appeal 2007-0113
Application 10/353,776
The anticipation rejection
To establish anticipation, every element and limitation of the claimed
invention must be found in a single prior art reference, arranged as in the
claim. Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383, 58
USPQ2d 1286, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Scripps Clinic & Research
Foundation v. Genentech, Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576, 18 USPQ2d 1001,
1010 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Crow does not disclose optimizing thrust per se, as called for in
independent claim 2 (Fact 7). Crow also does not mention a formation
number F (Fact 10). The Examiner’s theory that Crow’s disclosure of a
Strouhal number of 0.30 indicates or corresponds to a formation number F
value of 3.5, that is, 4 ± 0.5, as disclosed by Appellants (Ans. 10-11), is
grounded on the Examiner’s flawed assumption that the Strouhal number of
Crow is the inverse of the formation number F of Appellants (Fact 10).
In light of the above, we conclude the Examiner has not shown that all
elements of independent claim 2, and hence claims 4 and 5 depending
therefrom, are taught by Crow. The rejection cannot be sustained.
SUMMARY
The rejections of claims 2-7 under the doctrine of res judicata and
claims 2, 4, and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) are reversed. The rejection of
claims 2-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is sustained as to
claims 4 and 5 and reversed as to claims 2, 3, 6, and 7. The rejection of
claims 2-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is sustained. As at least
one rejection of each of the claims on appeal is sustained, the decision of the
Examiner to reject claims 2-7 is affirmed.
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013