Appeal No. 1998-3427 Page 3
Application No. 08/442,109
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants’ specification and
claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
We turn first to the examiner’s rejection of claims 31
through 35, 37 through 41, 43, 45 and 46 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as anticipated by Cocks. We initially note that 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).
Appellants argue that Cocks does not disclose “forming
the outer lining by helically winding a plurality of layers of
continuous filament fiber material onto said core” as recited
in claim 31.
The examiner responds to this argument by stating:
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007