Appeal No. 2001-0737 Page 9
Application No. 08/766,212
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner
to reject claims 1 to 35, 53 to 55, 62 to 73 and 80 to 95
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is reversed.
The anticipation rejections
We will not sustain the rejections of claim 62 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
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).
In this case we agree with the appellant (brief, pp. 23-
26) that claim 62 is not anticipated by either Oetiker '012 or
Oetiker '004.2 In that regard, both Oetiker '012 and Oetiker
2 As explained in In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 1193, 29
USPQ2d 1845, 1848-49 (Fed. Cir. 1994), the USPTO is not exempt
from following the statutory mandate of 35 U.S.C. § 112,
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007