Appeal No. 2003-0133
Application 08/940,702
Williams. Claims 4 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Williams in view of Munsil. Claims 1, 2,
5, 8 through 12, and 25 through 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Hogan in view of Reilly. Claims
3, 4, 6, 7, 26, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Hogan in view of Reilly and Munsil.
OPINION
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on
appeal, the examiner’s rejections and the arguments of the
appellants’ and the examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we
reverse the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 3, 5, 6, 8
through 12, and 25 through 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and we
reverse the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 12, and 25
through 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can
be found only if the prior art reference discloses every element
of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136,
138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v.
American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481,
485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007