Appeal No. 2003-0191
Application 09/155,278
THE REJECTION
Claims 1-3, 5-9 and 11-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being unpatentable over Runyon.1
OPINION
We reverse the aforementioned rejection. We need to address
only the sole independent claim, i.e., claim 1.
“Anticipation requires that every limitation of the claim in
issue be disclosed, either expressly or under principles of
inherency, in a single prior art reference.” Corning Glass Works
v. Sumitomo Electric, 868 F.2d 1251, 1255-56, 9 USPQ2d 1962, 1965
(Fed. Cir. 1989).
The appellant’s claim 1 requires 1) first and second hybrid
transmission polarization couplers, and 2) at least one hybrid
distribution coupler having a first output connected to a first
input of the first polarization coupler and a second output
connected to a first input of the second polarization coupler.
Runyon discloses a radio station (col. 6, lines 24-27)
having a polarization control network (18a) which includes a
first polarization control module (81) for accepting a pair of
1 Runyon is not prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). We
treat the rejection as being under the subsection of § 102 which
the examiner should have relied upon, i.e., § 102(e).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007