Appeal No. 1997-0863
Application 08/456,001
determination that appellants’ disclosure as originally filed
would have reasonably conveyed to the artisan that the
inventors had possession of the now claimed subject matter at
the time of filing of the present application. Thus, the
examiner's rejection of claims 1, 9 and 14 under 35 U.S.C.
112, first paragraph, as lacking support in the originally
filed disclosure will not be sustained.
Next, we turn to the prior art rejection of claims 1
through 3, 22 and 25 through 31 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as
being anticipated by Miyata. As is by now well settled, an
anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102 is established when a single
prior art reference discloses, either expressly or under
principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed
invention. See RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems,
Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 221 USPQ 385 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Looking first at independent claim 1, we note that this
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007