Appeal No. 1996-2637
Application No. 08/190,566
(2) Claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over the disclosure of Robin;
(3) Claims 4 through 11, 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined disclosures of either Bielfeldt
or Dannels and Mafilios; and
(4) Claims 4 through 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over the combined disclosures of Takahashi and Sors.
We reverse each of the foregoing rejections.
We turn first to the examiner’s § 102(b) rejection of
claims 4 through 11 and 14 as anticipated by the disclosure of
Robin. To anticipate the claimed subject matter under Section
102(b), Robin must disclose, either expressly or under the
principles of inherency, each and every claim limitation. See
In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed.
Cir. 1990); RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730
F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Here, the examiner refers to only some of the claimed
limitations allegedly taught by Robin. See the Answer, page
5. The examiner, for example, refers to Robin’s disclosure
regarding the enlargement of the mold cavity by 0.01 inch and
attempts to equate that distance with the claimed distance L.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007