Appeal No. 1998-1789
Application No. 08/473,129
Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Johnson in view of Corrigan.2
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner’s full
commentary with regard to the above-noted rejections and the
conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the rejections, we make reference to the
Examiner’s Answer (Paper No. 14) and the Appellant’s Briefs
(Paper Nos. 13 and 16).
OPINION
All but one of the appellant’s claims stands rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). The guidance provided by our
reviewing court with regard to the matter of anticipation is
as follows: Anticipation is established only when a single
prior art reference discloses, either expressly or under the
principles of inherency, each and every element of the claimed
invention (see In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480-1481, 31
USPQ2d 1671, 1675 (Fed. Cir. 1994) and In re Spada, 911 F.2d
705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
2Rejections of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, and claims 1, 9, 10, 16 and 20-31 under the
doctrine of double patenting, were overcome, respectively, by
amendment and by the filing of a terminal disclaimer.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007