Appeal No. 1998-3048
Application 08/502,993
Opinion
The rejection of claims 1-5 is reversed.
A reversal of the rejection on appeal should not be
construed as an affirmative indication that the appellant’s
claims are patentable over prior art. We address only the
positions and rationale as set forth by the examiner and on
which the examiner’s rejection of the claims on appeal is
based.
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, either expressly or under the principles
of inherency, each and every element of the claimed invention.
In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 707, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed.
Cir. 1990); RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730
F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed.Cir. 1984). See also
In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir.
1986); Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist &
Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir.
1984). The prior art reference must either expressly or
inherently describe each and every limitation in a claim.
Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d
1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007