Appeal No. 95-5030
Application 07/815,694
note that all prior art references on which the examiner relies
in support of a rejection should be positively recited in the
stated ground of rejection. In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3,
166 USPQ 406, 407 n.3 (CCPA 1970). Thus, here, no IEEE standard
can be relied upon in support of the examiner's rejection, not to
mention that no such reference has even been furnished by the
examiner for anyone's consideration.
Claims 1, 17 and 25 are the only independent claims. All
other claims depend directly or indirectly from one of claims 1,
17 and 25. For the foregoing reasons, we cannot sustain the
rejection of claims 1-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Fava and Miro.
The anticipation rejection of claims 1-30
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, either expressly or under the principles of
inherency, each and every element of the claimed invention. In
re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 707, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir.
1990); Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2
USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987);
RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440,
1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007