Appeal No. 99-1752
Application 08/632,955
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determination which follows.
We reverse the examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e). While this panel of the board fully appreciates the
examiner’s viewpoint, as revealed by the commentary in the
answer (pages 4 and 5) and the showing in Attachments “A” and
“B”, for the reasons set forth below we differ in our
conclusion that the Tamaki patent is not an anticipation.
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, either expressly or under 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, it must be kept in mind
that an anticipation cannot be based upon teachings in a
reference that are vague or ambiguous. See In re Turlay, 304
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007