Appeal No. 1998-2849 Page 12
Application No. 08/584,158
The anticipation issue
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 35 through
37, 39 and 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
To support a rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b), it must be shown that each element of the claim is
found, either expressly described or under principles of
inherency, in a single prior art reference. See Kalman v.
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789
(Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
We agree with the appellant's argument (brief, pp. 21-22)
that the methods disclosed by Wright are quite different from
the method set forth in claims 35 through 37, 39 and 41.
Specifically, it is our opinion that steps (b), (d) and (e) of
independent claim 35 are not disclosed by Wright.
Since all the limitations of claims 35 through 37, 39 and
41 are not found in Wright for the reasons set forth above,
the decision of the examiner to reject claims 35 through 37,
39 and 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007