Appeal No. 2002-2142 Page 4
Application No. 09/276,858
THE GROUPING OF THE CLAIMS
In the section of the Brief entitled “GROUPING OF THE CLAIMS”, Appellants state
that claims 1-20 do not stand or fall together (Brief at 6). We consider the claims separately only
to the extent Appellants present separate substantive arguments in the argument section of the
Brief. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) and (8)(2001).
OPINION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-4, 9-11, 17, and 18 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) and claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). However, we reverse the decision of
the Examiner with respect to the rejection of claims 5-8, 12-16, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b).
Anticipation
Anticipation of a claim under § 102 can be found only if the prior art reference discloses
something embodying every element of the claim. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ
136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986). However, that does not mean that the reference must expressly
disclose every limitation. A prior art reference may anticipate when a claim limitation not
expressly found in the thing described in the reference is nonetheless inherent in it. In re Best,
562 F.2d 1252, 1254-55, 195 USPQ 430, 432-34 (CCPA 1977). Moreover, merely choosing to
describe the process using different terminology does not render the method patentable. In re
Skoner, 517 F.2d 947, 950, 186 USPQ 80, 82 (CCPA 1975).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007