Appeal No. 99-0650
Application 08/726,978
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over French ‘899 in view of Cramer.
The rejections are explained in the second office action
(Paper No. 9) and the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 17).
The opposing viewpoints of appellants are set forth in
the brief (Paper No. 15).
Considering first the § 102 rejection of claims 1-3 and
8, anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is established only
when a single prior art reference discloses, either expressly
or under the principles of inherency, each and every element
of a claimed invention. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473,
1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Paulsen, 30
F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In
re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir.
1990); and RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730
F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). However,
the law of anticipation does not require that the reference
teach specifically what an appellant has disclosed and is
claiming but only that the claims on appeal “read on”
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007