Appeal No. 2000-0511
Application No. 08/758,343
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Blue.
Claims 2 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Blue
in view of Bramming.
Reference is made to the brief and reply brief (Paper Nos. 7 and 9) and the answer
(Paper No. 8) for the respective positions of the appellant and the examiner with regard to the
merits of these rejections.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
make the determinations which follow.
The anticipation rejection
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference discloses, expressly or
under the principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention. RCA Corp.
v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.
1984). In other words, there must be no difference between the claimed invention and the
reference disclosure, as viewed by a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention.
Scripps Clinic & Research Found. v. Genentech Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576, 18 USPQ2d
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007