Appeal No. 2005-0169 Page 5
Application No. 10/118,754
For the foregoing reasons, appellants’ arguments do not persuade us that the
examiner erred in determining that claims 1-4 and 14-17 are anticipated1 by Rosato.
We thus sustain this rejection.
We shall not, however, sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4 and 14-17
as being unpatentable over Maus in view of Rosato. It is not apparent to us exactly
what the examiner’s findings are with regard to Maus and how the examiner is applying
the teachings of Rosato thereto. In particular, it is not apparent whether the examiner
considers the recited shear rate ratios of appellants’ claims to be met by Maus or
whether the examiner finds suggestion to modify the system of passageways and
torpedo-shaped shearing device of Maus to achieve such shear rate ratios. If the
examiner’s position is the former, we find no support in Maus therefor. If the examiner’s
position is the latter, it is not apparent to us what in Rosato’s teachings of primary,
secondary and tertiary runners disposed at right angles relative to one another, and the
respective shear rates therein, would have provided suggestion to modify Maus’
runnerless or hotrunner/shortrunner melt delivery system to achieve the recited shear
rate ratios.
1 Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference discloses, expressly or under
the principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital
Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In other words, there must be
no difference between the claimed invention and the reference disclosure, as viewed by a person of
ordinary skill in the field of the invention. Scripps Clinic & Research Found. 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