Appeal No. 2003-0353 Page 3
Application No. 09/452,157
To support a rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), it must be shown that
each element of the claim is found, either expressly described or under principles of
inherency, in a single prior art reference. See Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713
F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026
(1984).
The appellants argue that the process for drying a web as set forth in the claims
under appeal is not anticipated by Rodi. Specifically, the appellants point out that
(1) Rodi's invention is directed to a device for drying ink printed on sheets, and (2) Rodi
does not disclose a web, let alone the claimed method for drying a web. The examiner
responded to this argument (i.e., that Rodi does not disclose a web) by stating that
webs and sheets are equivalent subject matter.
We agree with the appellants that Rodi does not disclose a web as such term
would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.2 Therefore, the claimed subject
matter (i.e., a method for drying a web) is not met by Rodi's device for drying ink
printed on sheets. In our view, a web is a different article than a sheet. In that regard,
2 The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) applies to the verbiage of the claims
before it the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of
definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the appellants'
specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also In re
Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007