Appeal No. 96-0625
Application 08/044,113
and the Answer for the respective details thereof.3
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the issues raised in this appeal, we have carefully considered
appellant’s specification and claims, the applied patents, the respective viewpoints of appellant and the
examiner, and all other evidence of record. As a consequence of our review, we find that Watanabe
(see at least figures 11 and 16) and Fassett (see at least figure 5) fail to anticipate at least the "coupling
device" limitation of independent claim 9 on appeal. Accordingly, we will reverse the examiner’s
decision rejecting independent claim 9 on appeal. We will also reverse as to dependent claims 10 and
15 to 17 since they differ in scope and depend from parent independent claim 9. See In re Fine, 837
F.2d 1071, 1076, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1600 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and Ex parte Kochan, 131 USPQ 204,
206 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1961).
At the outset, we note that for a prior art reference to anticipate a claim it must disclose, either
explicitly or inherently, each and every limitation of the claimed invention. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d
1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We think a correct analysis of the
anticipation issues involved in this appeal requires a proper interpretation of sole independent claim 9 on
We will refer in our opinion to the amended Brief received April 10, 1995, and not to the original and3
defective Brief originally filed. We note that the Reply Brief has been entered and considered as per the November
15, 1995, communication from the examiner. We also note that the after final amendment filed on October 3, 1994, has
been entered.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007