Appeal No. 2002-0553
Application No. 09/391,782
Group 2----claims 14 through 17 which do not stand or fall
together; and
Group 3----claim 18.
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the anticipation issue raised
in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully considered
appellants’ specification and claims, 1 the applied Briffe
patent, the affidavit of Gary L. Owen (Paper No. 8), and the
respective viewpoints of appellants and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we make the determinations which
appear below.
At the outset, we note that 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
1 In light of appellants’ underlying disclosure, we
comprehend the term “FMS” in claims 2 and 18 to be the
abbreviation for “flight management system.”
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007