Appeal No. 96-2271
Application 07/995,047
The references relied upon by the examiner to support the
final rejection are:
Sugarbaker 2,638,901 May 19, 1953
Zeman 3,540,451 Nov. 17, 1970
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2 and 6 through 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Sugarbaker.
Claims 1, 2, 6 through 8 and 11 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Zeman.
The rejections are explained in the Examiner's Answer.
The opposing viewpoints of the appellants are set forth in
the Brief and the Reply Brief.
OPINION
The guidance provided by our reviewing court with regard to
the matter of anticipation is as follows: Anticipation under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) 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. See
In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480-1481, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1675
(Fed. Cir. 1994) and In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007