Appeal No. 2004-1312 Page 4
Application No. 08/710,554
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Rejection 1
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 57 to 60, 62 and 64 to 69 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as obvious over Maeda.
A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is
found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.
Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed.
Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987).
Claim 57 is not anticipated by Maeda since Maeda does not disclose a contact
panel in heat-conducting connection with the at least one guide and having at least one
contact surface, wherein the contact surface of the contact panel includes at least one
flat adhesive depression containing an adhesive means to provide an adhesive surface
substantially flush with the contact surface. Clearly, Maeda's plate 6 as shown in
Figures 3-6 includes no depression let alone a flat adhesive depression containing an
adhesive means to provide an adhesive surface substantially flush with the contact
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007