Appeal No. 96-0021
Application No. 08/105,820
examiner states that this portion of Ghandehari ‘499
incorporates by reference S.N. 745,293 (now Ghandehari ‘574)
and
...it would have been obvious to the routineer in
the art at the time the invention was made that the
pronouncement in the ‘499 patent at col. 4,
beginning at line 6 teaches that the mix-align-
compress-sinter method for NdFeB compounds is part
of the previous state of the art and therefore
anticipates the instant invention (Answer, page 4).
"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. 1987). One limitation of
appealed claim 6 is the composition of the alloy powder that
is mixed with NdFeB. The examiner has failed to show that
this limitation was “well known” in combination with the
conventional “mix-align-compress-sinter” steps of the
“previous state of the art” as evidenced by either Ghandehari
‘499 or ‘574. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 4 through
9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Ghandehari ‘499
cannot be sustained.
B. The Rejections under § 103
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007