Ex parte PLOMER - Page 5




          Appeal No. 1998-2275                                       Page 5           
          Application No. 08/428,253                                                  


               In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given                 
          careful consideration to the appellant's specification and                  
          claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the                     
          respective positions articulated by the appellant and the                   
          examiner.  As a consequence of our review, we make the                      
          determinations which follow.                                                


          The anticipation rejection                                                  
               We will not sustain the rejection of claims 14-18, 24 and              
          26 under 35 U.S.C.  102(b).                                                


               Anticipation is established only when a single prior art               
          reference discloses, expressly or under the principles of                   
          inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention.  RCA              
          Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444,              
          221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).  In other words, there                  
          must be no difference between the claimed invention and the                 
          reference  disclosure, as viewed by a person of ordinary skill              
          in the field of the invention.  Scripps Clinic & Research                   
          Found. v. Genentech Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576, 18 USPQ2d 1001,              
          1010 (Fed. Cir. 1991).                                                      







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007