Appeal 2007-1750
Application 11/057,917
The reference of record relied upon by the examiner as evidence of
anticipation is:
Bonner US 4,248,179 Feb. 03, 1981
Claims 1-7, 9, 20 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
being anticipated by Bonner.
ISSUE
The sole issue for our consideration in this appeal is whether the
examiner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the
claimed subject matter lacks novelty over Bonner.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The transitional phrase “comprising” is open-ended. See Free Motion
Fitness Inc. v. Cybex International Inc., 423 F3d 1343, 1347, 76 USPQ2d
1432, 1435 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Crystal Semiconductor Corp. v. Tritech
Microelectronics Int'l, Inc., 246 F.3d 1336, 1348, 57 USPQ2d 1953, 1958-
59 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“In the parlance of patent law, the transition
‘comprising’ creates a presumption that the recited elements are only a part
of the device, that the claim does not exclude additional, unrecited
elements.”)).
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
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013