Appeal No. 96-0922
Application 08/251,306
appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review,
we make the determinations which follow.
The rejection of claim 17
We affirm the examiner’s rejection of claim 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is established
only when a single prior art reference discloses, either
expressly or under principles of inherency, each and every
element of a claimed invention. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d
1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997), In re
Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-1479, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1675 (Fed.
Cir. 1994), In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655,
1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data
Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.
1984). However, the law of anticipation does not require that
the reference teach specif- ically what an appellant has
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007