Appeal No. 96-0113
Application 07/848,779
"A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -- ."
The language is not ambiguous but quite clear. The examiner
has the initial burden of establishing prima facie anticipation
by coming forward with evidence tending to disprove novelty.
In re Wilder, 429 F.2d 447, 450, 166 USPQ 545, 548 (CCPA 1970).
A prima facie case means the evidence of prior art would
reasonably allow the conclusion the examiner seeks and compels
such a conclusion if the applicant produces no evidence or
argument to rebut it. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 707 n.3,
15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
"Rejection for anticipation or lack of novelty requires, as
the first step in the inquiry, that all the elements of the
claimed invention be described in a single reference." In re
Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 707 n.3, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 n.3 (Fed. Cir.
1990). Anticipation of a claim under § 102 can be found only if
the prior art reference discloses every element of the claim.
In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir.
1986). In that regard, note also that what a reference discloses
is a question of fact. Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810
F.2d 1561, 1579 n.42, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1606 n.42 (Fed. Cir.), cert.
denied, 481 U.S. 1052 (1987).
Without findings from the examiner on just how Sullivan '501
-10-
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007