Appeal No. 2003-0529
Application No. 09/213,045
The examiner relies on the following prior art reference as
evidence of unpatentability:
Wixon 4,790,856 Dec. 13, 1988
Claims 6 through 8 on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Wixon. (Examiner’s answer mailed
Aug. 27, 2002, paper 30, page 3.)
We reverse this rejection and remand this application for
further proceedings.
The Examiner’s §102 Rejection
“To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must disclose
every limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or
inherently.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d
1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997); accord Glaxo Inc. v. Novopharm
Ltd., 52 F.3d 1043, 1047, 34 USPQ2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
In addition, the prior art reference must disclose the
limitations of the claimed invention “without any need for
picking, choosing, and combining various disclosures not
directly related to each other by the teachings of the cited
reference.” In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587, 172 USPQ 524, 526
(CCPA 1972); cf. In re Schaumann, 572 F.2d 312, 315, 316, 197
USPQ 5, 8, 9 (CCPA 1978)(holding that “the disclosure of a
chemical genus...constitute[s] a description of a specific
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007