Appeal No. 1997-4111 Page 9
Application No. 08/540,947
person of such skill to make and use the appellants' invention
without undue experimentation. This is especially true in
view of the declaration of Antoine Paturle (Paper No. 6, filed
May 28, 1996) submitted to establish the operability of the
claimed invention. Moreover, as correctly pointed out by the
appellants (brief, p. 11), it is well settled that an inventor
need not understand the scientific theory of how the invention
works as long as it works.
The anticipation rejection
We sustain the rejection of claims 7-9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b).
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).
Claim 7
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007