Appeal No. 97-0391
Application 08/443,044
into the claims. In re Lundberg, 244 F.2d 543, 548, 113 USPQ
530, 534 (CCPA 1957); In re Queener, 796 F2d. 461, 464, 230
USPQ 438, , (Fed. Cir. 1986). We are also mindful of the
requirements of anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 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 RCA Corp. V. Applied Digital Data
Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed.
Cir. 1984).
Rejection of claims 1, 4, 7 and 10 over Zinkann
We take claim 1 as representative. We have reviewed
Appellants’ arguments [brief, pages 3 to 9] and Examiner’s
position [final rejection, page 1 and answer, pages 4 to 7].
The parties disagree on the meaning of the term “adverse
. . . environmental condition adverse to operation of said
control unit” (claim 1, lines 4 to 5). The Examiner quotes
Webster’s New World Dictionary, 3rd College Edition, for the
meaning of “environmental” as “‘all the conditions,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007