Appeal No. 95-3517
Application 08/203,729
17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or the rejection of claims 2 through 4,
6, 8, 10 through 12, 14 through 16, 18 through 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
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.), cert. dismissed,
468 U.S. 1228 (1984), citing Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713
F.2d 760, 772 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
On page 2 of the answer, the Examiner refers back to the
final action for the grounds of the rejection. On page 2 of the
final action, the Examiner relies on one sentence found on pages
313-314 of Hamacher that states:
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007