Appeal No. 1997-1203
Application 08/432,786
disclosure are not to be imported into the claims. In re
Lundberg, 244 F.2d 543, 113 USPQ 530 (CCPA 1957); In re
Queener, 796 F.2d 461, 230 USPQ 438 (Fed. Cir. 1986). We are
also mindful of the requirements of anticipation under 35
U.S.C. § 102. We must point out, however, that anticipation
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is established only when a single prior
art reference discloses, either expressly or under the
principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed
invention. See RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems,
Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984),
cert.
dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984). Furthermore, only those
arguments actually made by Appellant have been considered in
making this decision. Arguments which Appellant could have
made but chose not to make in the briefs have not been
considered [37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
Analysis
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
anticipated by Hatori. The Examiner gives a detailed
explanation of the anticipation rejection [answer, pages 3 to
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007