Appeal No. 97-0145
Application 08/073,327
Claims 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Bettinger.
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Bettinger in view of the admitted prior art.
The rejections are explained in the Examiner's Answer.
The opposing viewpoints of the appellants are set forth in
the Brief and the Reply Brief.
OPINION
After consideration of the positions and arguments presented
by both the examiner and the appellants, we have concluded that
all three of the rejections set forth above should be sustained.
Our reasons for this decision follow.
The Rejection 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 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). It does not require
either the inventive concept of the claimed subject matter or
recognition of inherent properties that may be possessed by the
reference. See Verdegaal Brothers Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007