Appeal No. 96-4144 Page 6
Application No. 08/169,019
determination that it would be reasonably clear to those skilled
in the art that a only a pair of sloping surfaces are recited and
not three sloping surfaces. Since the scope of the invention
sought to be patented can be determined from the language of the
claims with a reasonable degree of certainty, the examiner's
rejection of claims 1 through 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, is reversed.
The anticipation issue
We will not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1
through 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Husted.
To support a rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b),
it must be shown that each element of the claim is found, either
expressly described or under principles of inherency, in a single
prior art 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).
Claim 1 is directed to a hanging rack apparatus for holding
printed circuit panels. The hanging rack apparatus comprises,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007