Appeal No. 1997-4013 Page 5
Application No. 08/145,867
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 38 and 39
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Bruder.
Likewise, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 38 and
39 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Teraoka.
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 1001,
1010 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In addition, it is well established
that an anticipation rejection cannot be predicated on an
ambiguous reference. Rather, statements and drawings in a
reference relied on to prove anticipation must be so clear and
explicit that those skilled in the art will have no difficulty
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007