Appeal No. 2004-0875 Page 5
Application No. 09/728,975
For the foregoing reasons, we agree with the examiner that the subject matter of
claim 1 is anticipated3 by Na. We therefore sustain the rejection of claim 1, as well as
claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 20 and 21 which appellants have grouped with claim 1 (brief,
page 3).
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 20
and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is affirmed.
3 To anticipate, every element and limitation of the claimed invention must be found in a single
prior art reference, arranged as in the claim. Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376,
1383, 58 USPQ2d 1286, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Scripps Clinic & Research Foundation v. Genentech, Inc.,
927 F.2d 1565, 1576, 18 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1991). It is not necessary that the reference
teach what the subject application teaches, but only that the claim read on something disclosed in the
reference, i.e., that all of the limitations in the claim be found in or fully met by the reference. Kalman v.
Kimberly Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S.
1026 (1984).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007