Appeal No. 2000-0210 Page 11
Application No. 08/893,906
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).
In this rejection, the examiner determined (answer, p. 4)
that each element of claim 9 is found, either expressly
described or under principles of inherency, in Paykin.
Specifically, as to the claimed step of "incorporating an
anti-adhesive additive in the hard plastic material of the
backing ring to prevent the backing ring from attaching to the
polymeric material that the sealing ring is made of," the
examiner stated that "[s]ince Paykin discloses that the
sealing ring will not bond to the backing ring (col. 5, line
43), the backing ring is considered to include an anti-
adhesive material to the same degree as claimed and
disclosed."
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007