Appeal No. 2002-0345
Application No. 09/177,655
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the anticipation issue raised
in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully considered
appellant's specification and claims, the applied patent to
Orsulak, and the respective viewpoints of appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determination which follows.
We sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 7, and
likewise the rejection of claims 9 and 10, which latter claims
stand or fall with claim 7 as earlier noted.
Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is established only
when a single prior art reference discloses, either expressly or
under principles of inherency, each and every element of a
claimed invention. 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); In re
Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990);
and RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440,
1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). However, the law of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007