Appeal No. 96-1883
Application 08/078,380
The Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under the principles of
inherency, each and every element of the claimed invention. See
RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440,
1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.), cert. dismissed sub nom.,
Hazeltine Corp. v. RCA Corp., 468 U.S. 1228 (1984). A reference
anticipates a claim if it discloses the claimed invention such
that a skilled artisan could take its teachings in combination
with his own knowledge of the particular art and be in possession
of the invention. In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152, 36 USPQ2d
1697, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 1362 (1996),
quoting from In re LeGrice, 301 F.2d 929, 936, 133 USPQ 365, 372
(CCPA 1962).
The appellants have set out two arguments with regard to the
rejection of claim 1 as being anticipated by Whelan. Both of
these are based upon the appellants’ belief that the holes (148,
150, 152 and 154) which exhaust onto the working surface are
simple cylinders, which are not at an angle to the working
surface (Replacement Brief, page 6). We do not agree. Not only
are these holes illustrated in the drawings as being at an angle
(Figure 5), but they are described in Whelan’s claim 1 as being
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007