Appeal 2007-0817
Application 10/992,253
Claims 1, 8, 14-18, 21, 22, 28-31 and 35 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Betsinger.
ISSUE
The sole issue for our consideration on appeal is whether Appellant
has established that the Examiner erred in rejecting the appealed claims for
lack of novelty.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Appellant and the Examiner both agree that Betsinger discloses a
propeller positioning system which constrains the propellers 16, 18 of
Betsinger to “follow each other along a single arc 86 in response to the
driving of sleeves 38 and 40 to port or starboard such that as the boat 10
heels to a degree determined by the sharpness of a turn, the props are
positioned along arc 86 so as to be maintained at essentially constant depth
in the water.” Betsinger, col. 6, ll. 18-24.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The prior art may anticipate a claimed invention, and thereby render it
non-novel, either expressly or inherently. In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig.,
301 F.3d 1343, 1349, 64 USPQ2d 1202, 1206 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Express
anticipation occurs when the prior art expressly discloses each limitation
(i.e., each element) of a claim. Id. In addition, “[i]t is well settled that a
prior art reference may anticipate when the claim limitations not expressly
found in that reference are nonetheless inherent in it.” Id.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013