Appeal No. 95-2382
Application 07/955,671
involving claims 1-6, 11-14 (as they depend upon claims 1-6), and
15. Our reasons are set forth below.
OPINION
A. The Rejection Under § 102(b)
Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), anticipation requires that the
prior art reference disclose, either expressly or under the
principles of inherency, every limitation of the claim. See In
re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The method of appealed claim 1 requires four steps.
Appellants do not contest that the first three steps are
disclosed by EP ‘493 (brief, pages 5-7). Appellants argue that
EP ‘493 fails to discuss the chilling of liquid coating materials
on a support with the materials facing downwards and horizontal
until the materials gel (brief, sentence bridging pages 6-7).
Appellants recognize that Figures 5, 7 and 8 of EP ‘493 show
chilling chambers wherein the web enters the chamber with the
coated photographic materials facing downward but argues that
these drawings are “truncated”, i.e., the web is not shown
leaving the chilling chamber (brief, pages 5 and 6). Appellants
submit that Figure 9 of EP ‘493 shows the only complete chilling
chamber and this figure shows the support at an angle with the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007