Appeal No. 2000-2175 Page 6
Application No. 09/268,925
The rejections based on Ono
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9,
10 and 15 based on Ono.
A prior art reference anticipates a claim only if the
reference discloses, either expressly or inherently, every
limitation of the claim. See Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union
Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir.
1987). Absence from the reference of any claimed element
negates anticipation. See Kloster Speedsteel AB v. Crucible,
Inc., 793 F.2d 1565, 1571, 230 USPQ 81, 84 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Similarly, a case of obviousness is established when the
teachings of the prior art itself would appear to have
suggested the claimed subject matter to one of ordinary skill
in the art. See In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529,
1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The issue raised by the appellant and the examiner in this
appeal is whether the claim phrase "HVAC plastic duct
connector," which appears in the preamble of independent claims
1 and 7, is or is not an affirmative limitation of the claim.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007