Appeal No. 96-3679
Application 08/179,861
The Rejections4
Claims 1 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over the French patent.
Claims 2-4 and 6-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the French
patent in view of Ackermann or Hanna.
Opinion
After careful consideration of the issues raised in this appeal and with the arguments of both the
appellants and the examiner, we reverse both of the examiner’s rejections.
The examiner rejected claims 1 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by the French
patent. The factual determination of anticipation requires the disclosure in a single reference of every
element of the claimed invention. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir.
1990); In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832, 15 USPQ2d 1566, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Diversitech Corp.
v. Century Steps, Inc., 850 F.2d 675, 677-678, 7 USPQ2d 1315, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re
Marshall, 578 F.2d 301, 304, 198 USPQ 344, 346 (CCPA 1978); In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587-
88, 172 USPQ 524, 526 (CCPA 1972). Moreover, it is incumbent upon the examiner to identify wherein
each and every facet of the claimed invention is disclosed in the applied reference. Lindemann
Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist and Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481,
The examiner based both rejections on Derwent abstract 68292v during prosecution denoting that the abstract4
is an abstract of the French patent. Since an English translation of the French patent is of record and since during
prosecution both the examiner and appellants considered the English translation of the French patent, our consideration
of the rejections is based on the English translation.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007