Appeal No. 1998-1107 Page 4
Application No. 08/536,768
OPINION
In deciding this appeal, we considered the subject matter
on appeal and the rejection advanced by the examiner.
Furthermore, we duly considered the arguments and evidence of
the appellant and examiner. After considering the totality of
the record, we are persuaded that the examiner erred in
rejecting claims 6-30. Accordingly, we reverse.
We begin by noting the following principles from Rowe v.
Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir.
1997).
A prior art reference anticipates a claim only if
the reference discloses, either expressly or
inherently, every limitation of the claim. See
Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d
628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
"[A]bsence from the reference of any claimed element
negates anticipation." Kloster Speedsteel AB v.
Crucible, Inc., 793 F.2d 1565, 1571, 230 USPQ 81, 84
(Fed. Cir. 1986).
We also note the following principles from In re Rijckaert,
9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the
examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a
prima facie case of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977
F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992).... "A prima facie case of obviousness is
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007