Appeal 2007-0275
Application 09/313,278
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 39-50 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Douglas.
2. Claim 51 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the teachings of Douglas in view of Official Notice.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Briefs and the Answer for the respective details
thereof.
STATEMENT OF LAW
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a single prior art reference
that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a claim
invalidates that claim by anticipation. Perricone v. Medicis Pharmaceutical
Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375-76, 77 USPQ2d 1321, 1325-26 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
(citing Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Johnson & Johnson Orthopaedics, Inc.,
976 F.2d 1559, 1565, 24 USPQ2d 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1992)).
Anticipation of a patent claim requires a finding that the claim at issue
“reads on” a prior art reference. Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d
1342, 1346, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1945 (Fed Cir. 1999) (“In other words, if
granting patent protection on the disputed claim would allow the patentee to
exclude the public from practicing the prior art, then that claim is
anticipated, regardless of whether it also covers subject matter not in the
prior art.”) (internal citations omitted).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013