Appeal No. 1997-1181 Page 6
Application No. 08/000,735
in a core in a separate embedding step comprising pouring a
high viscosity resin between the core and windings and
hardening the resin.
In light of the above, we shall not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claim 1, or claim 2 which depends from
claim 1, as being anticipated6 by the Japanese document.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject
6 Anticipation 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).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007