Appeal No. 99-0210
Application 08/732,285
As for claim 23, we agree with the examiner that “the
nose strip” lacks antecedent basis, and therefore we will
sustain the Section 112 rejection against this claim.
We find ourselves in agreement with the appellant,
however, that the “cores” recited in claim 30 are different
from the reinforced walls of claim 28, as explained on pages
10 and 11 of the specification, and therefore this is not a
valid ground for a rejection on the basis of indefiniteness.
This portion of the rejection is not sustained.
In summary, only the rejection of claim 23 under Section
112 is sustained.
The Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
Claims 13 and 15-26 stand rejected as being anticipated
by German ‘283. 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-
81, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1675 (Fed. Cir. 1994) and In re Spada, 911
F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Anticipation by a prior art reference does not require either
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007