Appeal No. 97-4165
Application No. 08/596,553
Claims 1-5 also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Suga.
The rejections are explained in Paper No. 4 (the final
rejection).
The opposing viewpoints of the appellant are set forth in
the Appeal Brief.
OPINION
The Double Patenting Rejection
The appellant has not contested this rejection, but has
merely offered to file an appropriate terminal disclaimer once
allowable subject matter is indicated (Brief, page 3). However,
in the absence of a terminal disclaimer at this time, we are
constrained to sustain the rejection.
The Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under the principles of
inherency, each and every element of the claimed invention. See
RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., I1nc., 730 F.2d 1440,
1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.), cert. dismissed sub nom.,
Hazeltine Corp. v. RCA Corp., 468 U.S. 1228 (1984). It is our
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007