Appeal No. 2002-1831
Application No. 08/841,320
appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
make the determinations which follow.
Anticipation
We sustain the rejection of claims 1, 7, and 10 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Nokajima, and likewise
the rejection of claims 3, 5, and 11 since these latter claims
stand or fall with the former claims as earlier indicated.
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,
2(...continued)
Additionally, this panel of the Board has taken into account not
only the specific teachings, but also the inferences which one
skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw
from the disclosure. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826,
159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007