Appeal No. 96-1605
Application No. 07/887,629
Claims 2 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by the French reference. Reference is made
to the examiner’s answer for details of this rejection.
We have carefully considered the issues raised in this
appeal together with the examiner’s remarks and appellants’
arguments. As a result, we conclude that the rejection of the
appealed claims cannot be sustained.
It is well established patent law that for a reference to
be properly anticipatory, each and every element of the
rejected claim must be found either expressly described or
under the principles of inherency in the applied reference.
See RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d
1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
There is no dispute that the coin separating apparatus in
the French reference has a primary race or coin passage (e)
and a secondary race or coin passage (h) interconnected by an
aperture (f) such that a lateral force exerted by a member (g)
causes coins traveling down the primary race and having a
diameter smaller than a first diameter to pass through the
aperture and into the secondary race while allowing coins of
the larger, first diameter to continue their downward travel
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007