Appeal No. 1998-1388 Page 5
Application No. 08/357,678
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we considered
the subject matter on appeal and the rejections advanced by
the examiner. Furthermore, we duly considered the arguments
and evidence of the appellants and examiner. After
considering the totality of the record, we are persuaded that
the examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4-8, and 10-22.
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 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007