Appeal No. 2000-1219
Application No. 08/905,910
that claim 12 is not anticipated by the disclosure of
Handfield. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 12 is
reversed. Our reasons follow.
Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires that "each
and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either
expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art
reference." In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745, 49 USPQ2d
1949, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 1999)(quoting Verdegal Bros., Inc. v.
Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 5053)(Fed.
Cir.)) cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987). Thus, it is
incumbent upon the examiner to find one-to-one correspondence
between the claimed subject matter and that disclosed in the
structure of Handfield.
We are in agreement with the examiner that Handfield
discloses a fluid injection pump having a housing with an
inlet, an outlet and a bore, inlet and outlet valves, a piston
to reciprocate within the bore and a means to reciprocate the
piston through its suction and pressure strokes. With respect
to the sliding seal and flexible seal, the examiner states
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007