Appeal No. 2003-0210
Application 03/237,574
Creutz, in view of Robinson, Boller or Eubank; and claim 6 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Robinson, Boller or Eubank,
in view of Corson.1
OPINION
We reverse the aforementioned rejections.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) of
claims 1, 7 and 15 over Robinson,
claims 1 and 7 over Boller, and
claims 1, 7 and 8 over Eubank
In Carella v. Starlight Archery, 804 F.2d 135, 139, 231 USPQ
644, 646 (Fed. Cir. 1986), the court stated that “[t]he statutory
language ‘known or used by others in this country’ (35 U.S.C.
§102(a)), means knowledge or use which is accessible to the
public.” However, the court in In re Borst, 345 F.2d 851, 854,
145 USPQ 554, 557 (CCPA 1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 973 (1966),
stated:
Section 155 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2185) provides:
In connection with applications for
patents covered by this subchapter [XII -
Patents and Inventions], the fact that the
invention or discovery was known or used
before shall be a bar to the patenting of
such invention or discovery even though such
1 In the examiner’s answer the examiner withdraws rejections
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) of claim 9 over Eubank and claim 15 over
Eubank or Boller (answer, page 2).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007