Appeal No. 2002-2254 Page 6
Application No. 09/456,046
accumulate and eventually be discarded; and (2) the left grease barrier and the right
grease barrier are of a semi-hemispherical cross-section to allow the wheels of the grill
to easily roll over.
We agree with the examiner that claims 1 and 3 are readable on Sandaj as set
forth by the examiner in the answer (pp. 3-5). Thus, we find the appellant's arguments
to be unpersuasive.
First, we note that the appellant cited no authority, and we are not aware of any
authority supporting the appellant's primary tenet that in determining whether a
reference anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) that "only the CLAIMED designs are to
be compared." As clearly set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)1 all that is necessary for an
anticipation rejection under Section 102(a) is that the claimed invention was described
in a printed publication in this country before the invention thereof by the appellant.
Thus, the full disclosure of Sandaj must be considered, not just the subject matter
claimed by Sandaj.
1 Section 102(a) reads: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -- (a) the invention was
known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a
foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007