Appeal No. 1997-0704
Application No. 08/324,855
§ 103 as unpatentable over Moyer in view of Klun (Answer, page
5). Claims 35, 37-48 and 51-54 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Dueber in view of Klun (Answer,
page 6). Claims 35, 37-41, 45-48 and 51-54 stand rejected
under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over McKeever (Answer, page
7). Claims 35, 37-48 and 51-54 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Kistner in view of Klun (Answer,
page 8). We reverse all of the examiner’s rejections for
reasons which follow.
OPINION
A. The Rejections under § 102
"To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must
disclose every limitation of the claimed invention, either
expressly or inherently." Glaxo Inc. v. Novopharm Ltd., 52
F.3d 1043, 1047, 34 USPQ2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1995); see
also In re King,
801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986);
Kalman v. Kimberley-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 771, 218 USPQ
781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The examiner bears the initial
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007