Ex parte RONALD E. BOOTH, III - Page 6




                Appeal No. 95-4354                                                                                                            
                Application 08/137,633                                                                                                        


                pressure which showing the examiner does not dispute , it is                           4                                      
                clear that the parameters of Tsang do not anticipate the 3.2 psia                                                             
                to 13.4 psia of the instant claims as originally alleged by the                                                               
                examiner.  RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730                                                               
                F.2d 1440, 1444, USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). (Anticipation                                                                
                within 35 U.S.C. § 102 is established only when a single prior                                                                
                art reference discloses, expressly, or under the principles of                                                                
                inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention).                                                                    
                         Accordingly, based on this record the decision of the                                                                
                examiner is reversed.                                                                                                         
                                                                REVERSED                                                                      







                                         RONALD H. SMITH                                   )                                                  
                                         Administrative Patent Judge                       )                                                  
                                                                                           )                                                  
                                                                                           )                                                  
                                                                                           ) BOARD OF PATENT                                  
                                         MARC L. CAROFF                                    )                                                  
                                         Administrative Patent Judge                       )   APPEALS AND                                    
                                                                                           )                                                  
                                                                                           ) INTERFERENCES                                    

                         4The examiner entered and considered applicant's reply                                                               
                brief but he did not deem a response to applicant's arguments as                                                              
                necessary. See Paper No. 13.                                                                                                  
                                                                      6                                                                       





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007