Appeal No. 1997-3529 Page 3
Application No. 08/463,939
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10 and 12-16 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by or, in the alternative,
under § 103 as being unpatentable over Gro$ (German Patent
No. 654,470). Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10 and 12-16 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Norton in view of Neely and Brown.
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments
advanced by appellants and the examiner and agree with
appellants that the aforementioned rejections are not well
founded. Accordingly, we reverse these rejections.
§ 102(b)/ § 103 Rejection over Gro$
In order for a claimed invention to be anticipated under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b), all of the elements of the claim must be
found in one reference. See Scripps Clinic & Research Found
v. Genentech Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576, 18 USPQ2d 1001, 1010
(Fed. Cir. 1991). The examiner has the initial burden of
establishing a prima facie case of anticipation by pointing
out where all of the claim limitations appear in a single
reference. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007