Appeal No. 98-1461 Page 7
Application No. 08/335,153
invention with a reasonable degree of precision and
particularity.
For the reasons stated above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, is reversed.
The anticipation issue
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 17, 20
through 22 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as
set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or
inherently described, in a single prior art reference.
Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2
USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827
(1987). The inquiry as to whether a reference anticipates a
claim must focus on what subject matter is encompassed by the
claim and what subject matter is described by the reference.
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 17 and 19) that
independent claims 17 and 25 are not anticipated by Bronstad
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007