Appeal 2007-1562
Application 10/865,666
Claims 11-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Henderson; claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Henderson.1
The anticipation rejection
Claims 11-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Henderson.
Anticipation under § 102 requires that the identical invention that is
claimed was previously known to others and thus is not new. Scripps Clinic
& Research Foundation v. Genentech, Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576, 18
USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v.
Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 780, 227 USPQ 773, 777- 78 (Fed. Cir. 1985);
Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GmbH v. American Hoist and Derrick Co., 730
F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
The issue presented for review with respect to this rejection is: Does
the Henderson reference have a disclosure that anticipates the claimed
subject matter? The issue turns on whether Henderson describes an
apparatus that comprises the introduction of a fluid stream connected to the
downstream end of a transition zone. Regarding claims 12 and 13 the issue
turns on whether Henderson describes an inlet and outlet for fluid streams
arranged as specified by the claims. We answer these questions in the
affirmative.
1 We have considered the Appellant’s position presented in the Brief filed
September 25, 2006, and in the Reply Brief filed February 5, 2007.
Appellant contends that the claims on appeal should not stand or fall
together (Br. 5). We will consider the claims separately to the extent upon
which they have been argued in the Briefs.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013