Appeal No. 96-2294
Application 08/278,558
Hayafuji et al. (Hayafuji) 5,106,364 Apr. 21, 1992
The examiner has rejected claims 1 through 8 and 10 to 12
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Hayafuji. According
to the examiner, Hayafuji in Figure 14 discloses the claimed
invention.
Pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7), the appellant states that
the claims are to stand and fall in two groups. Group 1 consists
of claims 1 through 8 and Group 2 consists of claims 10 to 12.
Accordingly, we will limit our consideration to claims 1 and 10.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the rejection on appeal in light
of the arguments of the appellants and the examiner. As a result
of this review, we have determined that the claims on appeal are
not anticipated by the Hayafuji reference. Therefore, the
rejection of the claims on appeal will be reversed.
Additionally, pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b), this Board enters a
rejection of claims 10 through 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph.
The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question
of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and
obviousness. See In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 739, 218 USPQ
769, 775 (Fed. Cir. 1983). In relying upon the theory of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007