Appeal No. 2001-0250 Page 13
Application No. 08/283,074
rejection of claims 18 and 73 pro forma. We proceed to the 4
anticipation and obviousness rejections.
III. Anticipation Rejection of Claims 1, 7, 10, 12, 15, 16,
18, 21, 23, 39, 67, 89, and 91 and
Obviousness Rejection of claims 2-4, 6, 11, 17, 22, 81-83, and
90
We begin by noting the following principles from Rowe v.
Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir.
1997).
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). "[A]bsence from the
reference of any claimed element negates
anticipation." Kloster Speedsteel AB v. Crucible,
Inc., 793 F.2d 1565, 1571, 230 USPQ 81, 84 (Fed.
Cir. 1986).
We also note the following principles from In re Rijckaert,
9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the
examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a
prima facie case of obviousness. In re Oetiker,
977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992).... "A prima facie case of obviousness is
4Of course, a terminal disclaimer cannot be used to
overcome a 35 U.S.C. § 101 statutory double patenting
rejection. See M.P.E.P. § 804.02 (7th ed. July 1998).
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007