Appeal No. 1998-0659
Application No. 08/264,527
Examiner's answer, and supplemental Examiner's answer for the4 5
details thereof.6
I. OPINION
After careful review of the evidence before us, we will
sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), and
the rejection of claims 11, 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 10, 12 and 15 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
A. Rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under 35
U.S.C. § 102 can be found only if the prior art reference
discloses every element of the claim. See In re King, 801
F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and
Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick
4The Examiner's Answer was mailed November 12, 1996.
5 The Supplemental Examiner's Answer was mailed March 6,
1997. A response by the Examiner to Appellants’ Reply Brief
was mailed January 8, 1997 and stated that the reply brief had
been entered and considered but no further response by the
Examiner was necessary.
6 This case was remanded to the Examiner on December 13,
1999 as paper number 14 was not in the application file. The
Examiner provided a copy of paper number 14 and forwarded the
file to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007