Appeal No. 2001-2370 Page 3
Application No. 09/109,403
the applied prior art reference, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
To support a rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b),
it must be shown that each element of the claim is found, either
expressly described or under principles of inherency, in a single
prior art reference. See Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713
F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied,
465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
Each of independent claims 1, 3, and 5-9 recite that “the
shadow mask being provided with at least one reference portion.”
Independent claim 10 similarly recites “wherein the shadow mask
further includes at least one reference portion.”
Appellant asserts (brief, page 3) that “the shadow mask
according to the Appellant’s’s claimed invention allows accurate
positioning of the damper wire on the shadow mask by referring to
a reference portion indicated on the shadow mask itself when
mounting the damper wire to the shadow mask.” Appellant argues
(brief, page 4) that Seo "does not teach, explicitly or
inherently, a 'reference portion.'”
The examiner’s position (answer, pages 5 and 6) is that the
reference portion in Seo is the point where wires 21 are
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007