Appeal No. 98-1523 Page 12
Application No. 08/705,744
invention as clearly illustrated in Figs. 5a, 5b, 8a, 8b, 9,
and 14. Figures 5a, 5b, 8a, 9 and 14 depict different
embodiments of the Malmstrom device (Col. 1, lines 60-72).
Anticipation is not established if in reading a claim on
something disclosed in a reference, it is necessary to pick,
choose and combine various portions of the disclosure not
directly related to each other by the teachings of the
reference. In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587-88, 172 USPQ 524,
526 (CCPA 1972).
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 20, 24, 25 and 27 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Malmstrom.
In summary:
(1) The examiner’s 102(b) rejections of claims 18, 20,
23-25 as anticipated by (A) Warner (B) Azibert ‘977, and (C)
Radosav are sustained.
(2) The examiner’s 102(e) rejection of claims 18-20, 23-
25 and 27 as anticipated by Azibert ‘496 is sustained.
(3) The examiner’s 102(e) rejection of claims 21, 22 and
26 as aniticpated by Azibert ‘496 is not sustained.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007