Appeal No. 2003-1250
Application No. 09/388,582
Anticipation is only established when a single prior art
reference discloses every limitation of the claimed invention,
either explicitly or inherently. Glaxo Inc. v. Novopharm Ltd.,
52 F.3d 1043, 1047, 34 USPQ2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir.), cert.
denied, 516 U.S. 3378 (1995). The examiner is of the opinion
that Haldeman discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. We
agree with the examiner’s findings (answer, page 3) that Haldeman
discloses (Figure 1) profiled conductor segments 5 fitted
together to form an opening for a permanent plastic cooling tube
3.
Appellants argue (brief, pages 4 and 5) that the profiled
conductor segments in Haldeman are akin to their nonelected
species of Figure 9, and that “the Examiner either should not
have relied on the Haldeman reference as a basis for allegedly
anticipating the subject matter of claim 1, or should have
withdrawn the election of species requirement (at least with
regard to Fig. 9).” In response, the examiner indicates (answer,
page 5) that:
[A]n election of species is based upon consideration of
the independence of inventions disclosed in an
application. Election of species practice is unrelated
to rejection of claims over prior art where claims must
be given their broadest reasonable interpretation.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007