Appeal No. 96-1323
Application 08/295,118
something disclosed in the reference, i.e., all limitations of
the claim are found in the reference. See Kalman v. Kimberly-
Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir.
1983), cert.
denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984). In the present case, all the
limitations of claims 1 through 5 on appeal are found in
Hinds, either expressly or under principles of inherency, and
those claims are clearly anticipated thereby. Accordingly, we
will sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1 through 5
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Hinds.
We will also sustain the examiner's rejection of
claims 1 through 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Hinds in
view of Todd, wherein Todd (e.g., Figures 1 and 2) merely
gives us a better visual impression of what the above
expressly described embodiment of Hinds would look like with
square plant cells, as is already described in Hinds at page
2, lines 40-45, but not shown in the drawings thereof.
Neither Hinds nor Todd actually shows in their drawings the
grooves in the bottom surface as required in the claims on
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007