Appeal No. 2003-0954
Application No. 09/306,190
Claims 10 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the White
Paper.
Throughout our opinion, we make references to the Appellants’ briefs, and to the
Examiner’s Answer for the respective details thereof.1
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 1-3, 7-9, 11-14, 18-20, and 22-24 under
35 U.S.C. §102 and claims 10 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. §103.
I. Whether the Rejection of Claims 1-3, 7-9, 11-14, 18-20, and 22-24 Under
35 U.S.C. §102 is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the disclosure of the White
Paper does not fully meet the invention as recited in claims 1-3, 7-9, 11-14, 18-20, and 22-24.
Accordingly, we reverse.
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).
1 Appellants filed an appeal brief on March 1, 2002. Appellants filed a reply brief on July 22,
2002. The Examiner mailed out an office communication on May 20, 2002.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007