Appeal No. 1996-1735
Application No. 08/184,526
(3) Claims 3 through 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over the disclosure of Garnish . 3
We have carefully reviewed the specification, claims and
applied prior art, including all of the arguments advanced by
both the examiner and appellants in support of their
respective positions. This review leads us to conclude that
only the examiner’s § 102 rejection of claims 1, 2 and 10
through 14 and the examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 4
through 9 over Weiss are well founded. Our reasons for this
determination follow.
We turn first to the rejection of claims 1 through 3
under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as anticipated by the disclosure of
Weiss. An anticipation under Section 102 is established only
when a single prior art reference discloses, 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); RCA Corp. v. Applied
3The examiner has not extended this rejection to claim 1,
which is the parent claim of claims 3 through 9, and claim 2,
which is the parent claim of claim 3. It is not clear to us
why the examiner has not extended this rejection to claims 1
and 2 since the rejection of claims 3 through 9 necessarily
requires the rejection of claims 1 and 2.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007