Appeal 2007-0142
Application 10/636,964
from a first end and are substantially parallel to the sliding section (25) on
which the paraffin body (4) is arranged. (Col. 3, l. 55 – Col. 4, l. 7; Fig. 3).
Stahlecker discloses the waxing of yarn is performed by placing the
yarn (12) against the front surface of the paraffin body (5). (Col. 3, ll.
47-48; Fig. 2).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
A claimed invention is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 when all of
the elements of the claimed invention are found in one reference. See
Scripps Clinic & Research Found. V. Genentech Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576,
18 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The prior art reference must
disclose every limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or
inherently. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, a prima facie case of obviousness can be
established based upon some teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation in the
applied prior art reference(s) and/or knowledge generally available to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed subject matter.
Pro-Mold & Tool Co. v. Great lakes Plastics, Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 1573,
37 USPQ2d 1626, 1629-30 (Fed. Cir. 1996); ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v.
Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed. Cir.
1984).
The Examiner must explain why the prior art would have suggested to
one of ordinary skill in the art the desirability of the modification. See
In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013