Appeal No. 95-1844
Application 07/822,063
conclusion with respect to the invention as set forth in
claims 4, 8, 9 and 25. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
At the outset, we note that the examiner’s answers and
the appeal briefs provide arguments directed to an objection
to either new matter or essential subject matter which was
added to the specification and a requirement that the
objectionable matter be cancelled. Since there are no
rejections before us based upon the sufficiency of the
specification, we will not consider these arguments any
further herein. The propriety of the examiner’s objection is
not within our subject matter jurisdiction.
1. The rejection of claim 5 as
anticipated by Lehrmann.
Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires that each
element of the claim in issue be found, either expressly
described or under principles of inherency, in a single prior
art reference. Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760,
771, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465
U.S. 1026 (1984). Appellant argues that Lehrmann does not
disclose “a current input constructed and arranged in the form
of an opening adapted to receive a load current-carrying
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007