Ex parte JUNGMANN et al. - Page 3

          Appeal No. 1998-1642                                       Page 3           
          Application No. 08/541,894                                                  

          (Paper No. 16, filed December 15, 1997) for the appellants’                 
          arguments thereagainst.                                                     

               In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given                 
          careful consideration to the appellants' specification and                  
          claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the                      
          respective positions articulated by the appellants and the                  
          examiner.  As a consequence of our review, we make the                      
          determinations which follow.                                                
               The rejection in this case is under 35 U.S.C.  102(b).                
          We initially note that a claim is anticipated only if each and              
          every element as set forth in the claim is found, either                    
          expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art                    
          reference.  Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d                 
          628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 484                
          U.S. 827 (1987).  The inquiry as to whether a reference                     
          anticipates a claim must focus on what subject matter is                    
          encompassed by the claim and what subject matter is described               
          by the reference.  As set forth by the court in Kalman v.                   
          Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789                  

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007