Appeal No. 1997-3813
Application No. 08/371,205
Appealed claim 62 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(a) and/or (e) as anticipated by or, in the alternative,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Takata. (Examiner’s
answer, pp. 3-4.) Additionally, appealed claim 62 stands
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kawasaki
in view of Kirkland. (Id. at pp. 4-5.)
We reverse the aforementioned rejections.
We consider first the examiner’s § 102 rejection over
Takata. “To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must
disclose every limitation of the claimed invention, either
explicitly or inherently.” Mehl/Biophile Int’l Corp. v.
Milgraum, 192 F.3d 1362, 1365, 52 USPQ2d 1303, 1305 (Fed. Cir.
1999) (quoting In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d
1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); accord Glaxo Inc. v. Novopharm
Ltd., 52 F.3d 1043, 1047, 34 USPQ2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir.
1995).
According to the examiner, appealed claim 62 “is
considered to read on Takata (U.S. Patent No. 4,629,464).”
(Examiner’s answer, page 3.) However, the examiner has not
adequately explained on this record the basis for the
conclusion that each and every element of the claimed
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007