Appeal No. 2002-1519 Page 4
Application No. 09/433,344
to the respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4 and 5 for
the reasons which follow.
The anticipation rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
The examiner found (answer, p. 3) that claims 1 and 4 were anticipated by Starr
since (1) Starr discloses a fluid mixer and vortex distribution device comprising: an
oscillation and mixing chamber (chamber between inlet 12 and outlets 13, 14); a power
nozzle 12; a pair of control ports 21, 22; an exit aperture 13, 14; and (2) vortices are
inherently formed in Starr.
The appellant argues (brief, pp. 5-6) that the claimed subject matter is not
anticipated by Starr since Starr does not meet the limitations set forth in the "whereby"
clauses of claims 1 and 4.
To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must disclose every limitation of the
claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477,
44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997). As stated in In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007