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
(1987).
Considering first the § 102 rejection of claim 1 as being
anticipated by Myer, the only embodiment of Myer that
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007