Appeal No. 95-2205
Application 07/750,807
together unless there is a statement otherwise, and in the
appropriate part or parts of the arguments, Appellant presents
reasons as to why Appellant considers the rejected claims to be
separately patentable. We will, thereby, consider the
Appellant’s claims 1, 4 through 7, 9, 10, 24, 26 and 27 as
standing or falling together with claim 24 being the
representative claim. We further will consider the Appellant's
claims 21 through 23 and 28 through 30 as standing or falling
together.
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can
be found only if the prior art reference discloses every element
of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136,
138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v.
American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481,
485 (Fed. Cir. 1984). "Anticipation is established only when a
single prior art reference discloses, expressly or under
principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed
invention." RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730
F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert.
dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984), citing Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007