Appeal No. 2003-1726
Application No. 09/460,450
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art reference, and the respective positions articulated by
appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will reverse the anticipation rejection of claims 1 through 24.
"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." In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ
136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See also Lindemann Maschinenfabrik
GMBH v. American Hoist and Derrick, 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ
481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Thus, if any limitation is not
disclosed by Perlman, the claims cannot be anticipated.
The examiner states (Answer, page 3) that claims 1-221 are
rejected as being anticipated by Perlman, but fails to provide an
explanation of the rejection or a reference to a prior paper for
such an explanation. The final rejection, Paper No. 12, likewise
provides no explanation of the rejection, but does refer to the
previous action, which was the examiner's First Action, Paper
No. 8.
1 We assume that the examiner meant claims 1 through 24, since the
examiner states on page 2 of the Answer that the issue presented by appellants
on page 12 of the Brief (whether claims 1 through 24 are unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Perlman) is correct.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007