Appeal No. 1999-2733
Application 08/230,634
in view of Taber and Smith.
Reference is made to the final Office action (Paper No. 16 mailed October 21, 1997)
and to the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 19) for a discussion of the foregoing rejections.
We have carefully considered the issues raised in this appeal together with the
examiner’s remarks and appellant’s arguments. As a result, we conclude that the rejections of
the appealed claims cannot be sustained.
Considering first the § 102(b) rejection, it is well established patent law that for a
reference to be properly anticipatory, each and every element of the rejected claim must be
found either expressly described or under the principles of inherency in the applied reference.
See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997), In re
Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994), and RCA Corp.
v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.
1984). It follows that the absence from the reference of any element of the claim negates
anticipation of that claim by the reference. Kloster Speedsteel AB v. Crucible Inc., 793 F.2d
1565, 1571, 230 USPQ 81, 84 (Fed. Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1034 (1987).
The Renton patent discloses a flexible closure screen 51 for a window opening. In
this patent, however, the sheet defining the screen does not have a permanent memory set as
required by appealed claim 70. Instead, self-coiling, spring metal strips 53 are attached to the
screen to cause the screen to retract to a coiled condition on a roll 35. Contrary to the
examiner’s remarks on page 4 of the answer, the spring metal strips are not part of the screen
itself. Instead, the spring metal strips are formed separately of the screen and are attached to
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007