Appeal No. 2001-1334
Application No. 09/251,656
We shall summarily sustain this rejection as the
appellant has not challenged the examiner’s determination that
claim 1 is indefinite because it prompts the question: “is
Applicant claiming the body as part of the claimed
combination? If not, on line [12], ’positioned’ should be -
–positionable–-” (final rejection, page 3). 2
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under 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).
Schaar discloses a disposable diaper which is described
in the following terms:
2The word “positioned” appears on line 11 of claim 1 as
amended subsequent to final rejection.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007