Appeal No. 96-3149
Application 08/305,428
Binder et al. (Binder) 4,878,784 Nov. 7, 1989
THE REJECTIONS
The rejections are explained in the Examiner's Answer.
The opposing viewpoints of the appellants are set forth in
the Brief.
OPINION
Independent claims 13 and 14 stand rejected as being
anticipated by Binder. 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 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Both of these
claims require that the valve allow a “minimum” air flow when it
is in the lowered position. In the Binder system, the valve
closes the air duct completely when it is in the lowered
position. The examiner acknowledges this, but takes the position
that the terms of the claim are met on the theory of “the minimum
air flow being zero air flow” (Answer, page 3).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007