Appeal No. 2003-0213
Application No. 09/255,712
Nos. 21 and 23) and to the main and supplemental answers (Paper
Nos. 22 and 31) for the respective positions of the appellants
and the examiner regarding the merits of these rejections.1
DISCUSSION
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under principles of inherency,
each and every element of a claimed invention. RCA Corp. v.
Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
As framed by the appellants, the dispositive issues with
respect to the anticipation rejections on appeal are whether
Greul and Goto respectively meet the recitation in independent
claim 1 of the step of “regulating the degree of charging of the
process and the power of the process by extracting CO2,” and
whether Greul meets the corresponding and arguably broader
recitation in independent claim 29 of the step of “regulating the
degree of charging of the process by extracting CO2.”
Both Greul and Goto disclose a method of operating a power
plant which cycles CO2 gas as a working fluid. The Greul plant
1 The record indicates that English language translations of
the Greul and Goto references were mailed to the appellants with
the supplemental answer.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007