Appeal No. 1997-0637
Application 08/265,965
In our analysis, we are guided by the precedence of our
reviewing court that the limitations from the disclosure are
not to be imported into the claims. In re Lundberg, 244 F.2d
543, 548, 113 USPQ 530, 534 (CCPA 1957); In re Queener, 796
F.2d 461, 464, 230 USPQ 438, 440 (Fed. Circuit. 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. Circuit. 1984).
Rejection of claims 1 to 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102
These claims are rejected as being anticipated by Livay.
We first consider independent claim 1. We have studied the
positions of the Examiner [answer, pages 3 to 10] and
Appellants [brief, pages 5 to 13 and reply brief, pages 2 to
3]. While the Examiner has made an excellent effort in
responding to the Appellants’ arguments, the rejection fails.
An anticipation rejection requires that each and every element
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007