Appeal No. 2001-1622 Page 9
Application No. 09/226,969
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, based on the enablement requirement is reversed.
The anticipation rejections
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 12 to 14
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).
Claim 12, the sole independent claim on appeal, recites a
pool cover for covering a body of water in a pool comprising,
inter alia, a first opaque lightweight flexible plastic layer
and a second opaque lightweight flexible plastic layer secured
to and under the first layer whereby said layers block
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007