Appeal No. 2002-2272
Application 09/375,712
Claims 14 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Bergman in view of Hollon and Rogers.
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Cronin.
Attention is directed to the appellant’s main and reply
briefs (Paper Nos. 7 and 12) and to the examiner’s answer (Paper
No. 10) for the respective positions of the appellant and
examiner regarding the merits of these rejections.
DISCUSSION
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1 through 3
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under principles of inherency,
each and every element of a claimed invention. RCA Corp. v.
Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). It is not necessary that the
reference teach what the subject application teaches, but only
that the claim read on something disclosed in the reference,
i.e., that all of the limitations in the claim be found in or
fully met by the reference. Kalman v. Kimberly Clark Corp., 713
F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied,
465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007