Appeal No. 95-5059
Application 08/157,872
Claims 5, 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Daimler Benz in view of Jacobson.
Claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Daimler Benz in view of Jacobson and
Rantala.
The rejections are explained in the Examiner's Answer and
Paper No. 11.
The opposing viewpoints of the appellant are set forth in
the Brief.
OPINION
The Examiner’s Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under the principles of
inherency, each and every element of the claimed invention. See
RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440,
1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.), cert. dismissed sub nom.,
Hazeltine Corp. v. RCA Corp., 468 U.S. 1228 (1984). A reference
anticipates a claim if it discloses the claimed invention such
that a skilled artisan could take its teachings in combination
with his own knowledge of the particular art and be in possession
of the invention. In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152, 36 USPQ2d
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007