Appeal No. 96-3696
Application No. 08/242,987
OPINION
Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) is established only
when a single prior art reference discloses, either expressly
or under the principles of inherency, each and every element
of the claimed invention. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475,
1480-1481, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1675 (Fed. Cir. 1994) and In re
Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir.
1990). Since we find this not to be the case with regard to
the claims before us on appeal, we will not sustain the
rejection. Our reasoning follows.
Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus for guiding a milling
device for producing a planar surface on a portion of an
exposed bone. The claim recites a template means having a
reference surface and defining a track for accommodating a
milling machine, and a guide means
to be secured adjacent said bone for positioning
said template means over said bone portion . . .
[which] includes alignment means for aligning said
template means over said bone portion (emphasis
added).
It is the examiner’s position that the subject matter of claim
1 is anticipated by Bowman, which discloses an apparatus for
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007