Appeal No. 1999-1972 Page 7
Application No. 08/807,780
The anticipation issue
We will not sustain the rejection of claim 11 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 appellants' argument (brief, pp. 6-7)
that Dickhut does not disclose a separate noise maker as
recited in claim 11. In that regard, Dickhut only discloses
that the elongated tube 12 is formed so that an audible effect
is created when the tube is extended. Dickhut does not
disclose a separate noise maker secured in the tube 12 which
makes a noise due to flexing or stretching of the tube 12.
Thus, all the limitations of claim 11 are not found in
Dickhut. Accordingly, the decision of the examiner to reject
claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007