Appeal No. 97-1840 Page 8
Application No. 08/316,685
opinion that with respect to claim 12 that one possessing the
ordinary level of skill in this art would understand the
"inner concentric ring" recited in line 2 to mean the
"innermost ring" of the "concentric rings." Thus, a rejection
of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is
inappropriate and accordingly, the decision of the examiner to
reject claims 1 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, is reversed.
The anticipation issue
We sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1 through
4, 9 through 11, 13 through 16 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b).
A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as
set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or
inherently described, in a single prior art reference.
Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2
USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827
(1987). The inquiry as to whether a reference anticipates a
claim must focus on what subject matter is encompassed by the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007