Ex parte DATON-LOVETT - Page 6

          Appeal No. 1999-0738                                                        
          Application No. 08/474,195                                                  

          winding it into a coil from both ends.  In short, the examiner              
          has not advanced any reason, nor is any apparent to us, why a               
          person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the date of                      
          appellant’s application, would not have been able to make and               
          use the device as claimed without undue experimentation.                    
               Accordingly, we will not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.                
           112, first paragraph, rejection of claims 1-4, 15 and 19.                 
                       The rejections under 35 U.S.C.  102(b)                        
               It is well established patent law that for a reference to              
          anticipate a claim, each and every element of the rejected                  
          claim must be found either expressly described or under the                 
          principles of inherency in the applied reference.  See, inter               
          alia, RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d                
          1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).  It follows                 
          that the absence from the reference of any element of the                   
          claim negates anticipation of that claim by the reference.                  
          Kloster Speedsteel AB  v. Crucible, Inc., 793 F.2d 1565, 1571,              
          230 USPQ 81, 84 (Fed. Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1034               
               Considering first the  102 rejection of claim 1 as being              
          anticipated by Myer, the only embodiment of Myer that                       


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

Last modified: November 3, 2007