Appeal No. 2004-0621
Application No. 09/193,193
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the examiner has
not established a prima facie case of anticipation in view of
Grill. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138
(Fed. Cir. 1986)(anticipation requires that the prior art reference
disclose, either expressly or under the principles of inherency,
every limitation of the claim). The rejection of claim 9 is also
based on Grill in combination with the examiner’s “official notice”
(Answer, pages 5-6). The deficiencies discussed above are not
remedied by this “official notice.” Accordingly, both of the
rejections on appeal are reversed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007