Appeal No. 98-0588
Application 08/501,293
103 over Reddersen in view of Tymes, Tremmel, Moellering and
Shepard. We reverse the rejection of claims 22, 23, and 38
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Reddersen in view of Tymes,
Tremmel, Moellering and Shepard. Our decision sustaining the
obviousness rejection of claims 21, 24-37, 39 and 40 is based
only on the arguments presented by appellants in their briefs.
Arguments not raised are not before us, are not at issue, and
thus are not considered.
The anticipation rejection
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, either expressly or under the principles
of inherency, each and every element of the claimed invention.
In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 707, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed.
Cir. 1990); RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730
F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed.Cir. 1984). See also
In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir.
1986); Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist &
Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir.
1984). The prior art reference must either expressly or
inherently describe each and every limitation in a claim.
Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d
1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Claims 21, 37 and 40 recite a portable bar code scanner
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007