Ex parte TAKEUCHI et al. - Page 3




          Appeal No. 94-4307                                                           
          Application 07/919,267                                                       


               Claims 1-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  102(b) as                  
          anticipated by, or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C.  103 as              
          obvious over Japanese Laid Open Application 2-174649.                        
               Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.  112, first                   
          paragraph, in that “the specification, as originally filed, does             
          not provide support for the invention as is now claimed” (Answer,            
          page 3).                                                                     
                                       Opinion                                         
               We have carefully considered the respective positions ad-               
          vanced by both appellants and the examiner for patentability of              
          the appealed claims.  We will affirm the rejection under 35                  
          U.S.C.  112.  However, we will reverse the examiner’s rejections            
          under 35 U.S.C.  102(b) and 103.                                            
                          Rejection Under 35 U.S.C.  102(b)                           
               The factual determination of anticipation requires the                  
          disclosure in a single reference of every element of the claimed             
          invention.  In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657             
          (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832, 15 USPQ2d 1566,             
          1567 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Diversitech Corp. v. Century Steps, Inc.,             
          850 F.2d 675, 677-678, 7 USPQ2d 1315, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In              
          re Marshall, 578 F.2d 301, 304, 198 USPQ 344, 346 (CCPA 1978); In            
          re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587, 172 USPQ 524, 526 (CCPA 1972).  It             
                                           3                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007