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