Appeal No. 96-2612
Application 08/137,530
(1) Claims 1, 3, 5 to 9, 12, 14, 16, 18 and 19, anticipated by
Iten, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b);
(2) Claims 10 and 11, unpatentable over Iten, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
Rejection (1)
In order to anticipate a claim, a prior art refer-
ence must disclose every limitation of the claimed invention,
either explicitly or inherently. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d
1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In the
present case, appellant argues that the Iten patent does not
anticipate the claims because it does not disclose certain
claimed limitations, as follows (brief, page 2; numerals in
brackets added for convenience of reference to arguments):
In contrast to Iten, [I] the present
invention has three prongs and the at rest
alignments of those prongs is not identi-
cal. Specifically, the center prong is
aligned differently than the end prongs in
order to facilitate attachment and removal
of the cartridge. As previously noted,
Iten contains only two members which have
ment” section it is clear that he did not thereby intend to
withdraw either of them.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007