Appeal No. 97-1882 Page 6
Application No. 08/316,957
The anticipation issue
We will not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1 to
3, 5, 11, 12, 14 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Heinzen.
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). The prior art reference need not expressly
disclose each claimed element in order to anticipate the claimed
invention. See Tyler Refrigeration v. Kysor Indus. Corp., 777
F.2d 687, 689, 227 USPQ 845, 846-847 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Rather,
if a claimed element (or elements) is inherent in a prior art
reference, then that element (or elements) is disclosed for
purposes of finding anticipation. See Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v.
Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d at 631-33, 2 USPQ2d at 1052-54.
The examiner determined (final rejection, p. 2) that
[i]n Figure 1, Heinzen discloses a seal as claimed. The
seal has a knuckle mating portion 13, a deflector portion
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007