Appeal No. 2001-0533
Application No. 09/322,043
Accordingly, in that Smith does not disclose each and
every element recited in claim 1, we conclude that the subject
matter of claim 1 is not anticipated by Smith. Thus, we 4
shall not sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 1 as being
anticipated by Smith.
The obviousness rejections
Having reviewed the additional teachings of Conti,
Matsubara and Leopold, we find nothing therein which cures the
above-noted deficiency of Smith with regard to the limitations
of claim 1. Therefore, we shall also not sustain the
examiner's rejections of claims 4, 8 and 9, which depend from
claim 1, as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Conti,
Smith in view of Matsubara and Smith in view of Leopold,
respectively.
4Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference
discloses, expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and every
element of a claimed invention. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc.,
730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In other words,
there must be no difference between the claimed invention and the reference
disclosure, as viewed by a person of ordinary skill in the field of the
invention. Scripps Clinic & Research Found. v. Genentech Inc., 927 F.2d 1565,
1576, 18 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007