Appeal No. 1998-0551
Application No. 08/299,292
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we
agree with the Examiner that claims 17 through 23 and 42
through 44 are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b),
and claim 24 is properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Thus, we will sustain the rejection of these claims but we
will reverse the rejection of remaining claims on appeal for
the reasons set forth infra.
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102
can be found only if the prior art reference discloses every
element of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326,
231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann
Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d
1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984). "Anticipation
is established only when a single prior art reference
discloses, expressly or under principles of inherency, each
and every element of a claimed invention." RCA Corp. v.
Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc.,
730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984),
(citing Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218
USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
33
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007