Appeal No. 96-2587
Application No. 08/035,750
The examiner relies on the following references:
Van Dyke et al. (Van Dyke) 5,175,856 Dec. 29,
1992
Hastings 5,193,180 Mar. 9,
1993
Claims 1, 10 through 15, 36 and 41 through 45 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by Hastings.
Claims 2 through 9, 16, 17, 19, 21, 23 through 25, 29 through
34, 37 through 40, 46, 47, 51, 53 through 55 and 58 through 61
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Hastings in view of Van Dyke.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We reverse.
With regard to the rejection based on 35 U.S.C. § 102(a),
anticipation requires that each element of the claim in issue
be found, either expressly described or under principles of
inherency, in a single prior art reference. Kalman v.
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 771, 218 USPQ 781, 789
(Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007