Appeal No. 1999-1533 Page 4
Application No. 08/666,948
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
The anticipation rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 7, 10,
11, 14, 15, 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Lachaussee or Mizuta.
To support a rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b), it must be shown that each element of the claim is
found, either expressly described or under principles of
inherency, in a single prior art reference. See Kalman v.
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789
(Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
Claim 1, the only independent claim on appeal, recites a
combination of an assembled part and a conveyor. Claim 1
further recites that the conveyor includes, inter alia, a pair
of opposed symmetrically located guides establishing a
direction of conveyance, an upstream delivery member spaced
apart from a downstream positioning member, and a mechanism
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007