Appeal No. 97-2912
Application No. 08/291,768
Energie-und Umwelttechnik GmbH, Oct. 1985, pp. 97-120
(hereinafter referred to as “Kozmiensky”).
The appealed claims stand rejected as follows:
(1) Claims 6 through 11 and 13 through 15 under 35
U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by the disclosure of May; and
(2) Claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
the combined disclosures of May and Kozmiensky.
We will not sustain either of the above-mentioned
rejections. Our reasons for this determination follow.
We initially observe that the examiner relies on the May
reference to establish anticipation of the subject matter
defined by claims 6 through 11 and 13 through 15 under 35
U.S.C.
§ 102(b). It is well settled that an anticipation under
Section 102 is established only when a single prior art
reference describes, either expressly or under the principles
of inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention.
See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed.
Cir. 1990) and RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems,
Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007