Appeal No. 1997-3322
Application No. 08/353,940
under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, notwithstanding consideration of the Declaration under
37 CFR § 1.131, renders moot the procedural error of the examiner.
Issues
1. Claims 31 and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Novotny
1991.
2. Claims 1-4, 9-15, 19-30 and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
for obviousness over Novotny 1991.
3. Claims 1-4, 9-15, 19-33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable for
obviousness over Novotny 1986 in view of Skerra.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102
Claims 31 and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Novotny
1991.
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).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007