Appeal No. 2000-0941 Page 5
Application No. 09/077,362
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
The anticipation rejection based on Cadmus
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5,
7, 8, 11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by Cadmus.
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).
Claims 1 and 11, the only independent claims on appeal,
read as follows:
1. A roller blind for use in connection with a roof
window mounted in a pitched roof, the window having a
frame having a top, comprising:
a roller tube (1) which is mountable at the top of
the frame of the window;
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007