Appeal No. 97-3195
Application 08/387,419
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
The anticipation issue
We reverse the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Sanders. It follows that the rejection
of claims 2, 3, 7, and 9 on this same statutory ground is
likewise reversed since these claims stand or fall with claim 1,
as earlier indicated.
Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is established only
when a single prior art reference discloses, either expressly or
under principles of inherency, each and every element of a
claimed invention. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44
USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475,
1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Spada, 911
F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and RCA
Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444,
from the disclosure. See In re Preda 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ
342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007