Appeal No. 2003-1323
Application No. 09/421,803
DISCUSSION
The Examiner rejected claims 26 to 36 and 38 to 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Gevelber; and claim 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
combination of Gevelber and Hieber. (Answer, pp. 3-4.)
We reverse the aforementioned rejections. We need to address only the
independent claims, i.e., claims 36 and 45.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the Examiner and
Appellants concerning the above-noted rejection, we refer to the Answer, Brief and Reply
Brief for the full exposition thereof.
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of the claimed subject matter for the reasons
set forth in the Briefs. We add the following comments primarily for completeness and
emphasis.
Anticipation under § 102 requires that the identical invention that is claimed was
previously known to others and thus is not new. Scripps Clinic & Research Foundation
v. Genentech, Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576, 18 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1991);
Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 780, 227 USPQ 773, 777-78
(Fed. Cir. 1985); Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GmbH v. American Hoist and Derrick
Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007